Originally Posted by germanicus
It's very simple - either the cables make a difference in frequency response that is audible after level matching (say at 1kHz) or they don't. No need to discuss partial loudness or neurons.
You're avoiding the context of this discussion. First, level matching is NOT included in this control arrangement, because it produces, deliberately, a small, audible change in loudness.
So your insistance on modifying the control is simply making the control no longer a control.
As to partial loudness, it is entirely germane, because it shows the connection between an overall change in loudness and the way that any change in audible results from another cable must be expressed. It completes the thought, and as such is a necessary, material statement.
Please do not confuse the issue, please remain in context, which is a cable with a specified size and length showing an audible difference, and thus being a valid control. That is the only issue at hand.
Nobody doubts that you should make level-matched tests, UNLESS, say, you're trying to find out (yes, there are other ways to do so, which is irrelevant, although useful) if the cable creates an audible level change.
If so, you're compensating out the issue you're trying to test. That's simply a mistake.
If you want a control of that sort, using a cable is a very bad idea. It would be better to adjust the level a little using the preamp and determine the threshold for hearing volume differences.
And, again, you ignore the context. It is literally perfect in this regard, as it is something that the listener here, IN CONTEXT, could accomplish.
Certainly there are other methods, methods that require calibration, specialied equipment, etc, that were NOT AVAILABLE. What is available to anyone within reach of Home Depot is zip cord that's too small.
You seem determined to reject the obvious, utter, absolute superiority of using a too small cable IN A SITUATION WHERE NOTHING ELSE IS AVAILABLE.
If you want to loan the OP a lab, a listening room, and equipment, then maybe you and he can arrange to do a better job.
Until then, please STAY IN CONTEXT, and help, rather than raising methods and measurements NOT AVAILBLE TO THE PERSON WHO RAN THIS TEST.
See above. There are much better ways to do that.
Really? The context here is:
Somebody's living room.
The ability to change cables.
There are no meters of sufficient resolution. There is no calibrated attenuator.
So, in other words, your claimed methods are IMPOSSIBLE in the context we are discussing.
In short, you're not helping a bit, here, you're talking pie in the sky.
Yes, if I was doing this in my lab, I'd use different methods. Those methods and systems are not available in this case, and insisting there are better methods to the fellow who started this thread, who doesn't have the equipment, is a waste of time.
I am not going to go digging for a link to the Noisaine test, it was published before the net existed.
And I'm not going to find it and scan it, and violate somebody's copyright. If you can't find it, ask Tom, he's certainly going to know where you can find it, and he's hardly difficult to find.