Expensive cables a waste of $$ - Page 18 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 110Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #511 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:25 AM
Member
 
jerim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Do you know how to read posts? I said they weren't using a frequency that was a "MUSICAL" frequency. The frequency 3000Hz isn't a fundamental, harmonic or inharmonic or even an overtone normally found in acoustic instruments. Serioulsy.
Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics

More dishonesty, and another wall of text without any meaning..
67jason likes this.
jerim is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #512 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:27 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
Did you mean unbiased? This means that you've never done a real comparison yet. Then all those ramblings you've spouted last # of weeks are just baseless claims. An acknowledgement of that from you would be the first order of business in this endeavor. What say you?
You are running from the opportunity for me to conduct a double blind test, why?

I've told you I heard big enough difference that I didn't think a double blind would make diffence, it's still noticeable.

So, I want to administer a test with your input since you guys say you have experience in this area. I will do what I feel is fair, but I want to make it as hard as I can for the listeners. That's what you guys do. You won't even tell me how you conduct the actual test. You just spout nonsense about it being fair, when I know differently.

If I can do it, I'll do it, but if you don't supply me with your input, then YOU are the one running and YOU are the one that's wasting time.

In addition, i get far too many silly comments so I don't have time to respond to everyone, you aren't the only person in my world. You are just a pest for now.
drblank is offline  
post #513 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:30 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics

More dishonesty, and another wall of text without any meaning..
Go show me a musical note being played by a musical instrument that's properly tuned that's actually going to have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz.

I know what you are trying to get at, but you aren't listening. 3000Hz is not normally found in tuned acoustic instruments that actually make up a musical note. I guess if you are listening to rap music you probably hear it, but that's not exactly using acoustic instruments creating musical notes.
drblank is offline  
post #514 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
It's not getting too hot for me, you are OBVIOUSLY not going to man up and help me make sure the test subjects know anything about how to evaluate cables to prove my theory.
What you desire seems to involve the error of criterial biasing. The purpose of magic cables is supposed to be better sound quality. Listener's should not need to know how that improved sound quality is being produced, just that it is being produced.

My goal as test coordinator should involve teaching people how to hear improvements in sound quality of the kind that the magic cables produce.

ABX tests don't distinguish better or worse sound quality. They only capture information about differences in sound quality. Skepticism by informed parties based on past bad experience leads to serious doubts that magic cables make any significant changes to sound quality. Thus ABX tests with positive outcomes can be a big step forward in magic cable's struggle for credibility by proving that they can lead to audible changes of any kind.

Quote:
I'm asking you to help me devise a test that you think would be good enough to see if non-audiophiles that are untrained can hear the difference, if there are things about the test you want me to do, if I think it's reasonable and I can do it, then it will be part of the listening test.
I think that any listener with undamaged hearing or damage that is not too debilitating can detect any audible difference that exceeds those required for Just Noticable Detection (JND) by humans. JNDs can be related to observed technical differences such as distortion and noise.


Right now I've never had the opportunity to observe or test a magic cable that produced JNDs, despite fairly heroic attempts. I am of the understanding that you believe that you have cables that will reverse that trend. I think I would know such a thing by means of technical tests and reliable listening tests were it to appear in my presence.

Quote:
I'm asking for you to help me devise the test so that it satisfies both the Anti High End crowd and myself. So, this is YOUR opportunity to assist in devising the test.
Send me the magic cables and I will endeavor to accomplish what you desire if it is at all possible.
arnyk is offline  
post #515 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:36 AM
Member
 
jerim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Go show me a musical note being played by a musical instrument that's properly tuned that's actually going to have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz.

I know what you are trying to get at, but you aren't listening. 3000Hz is not normally found in tuned acoustic instruments that actually make up a musical note. I guess if you are listening to rap music you probably hear it, but that's not exactly using acoustic instruments creating musical notes.
There were several acustic instruments listed in the chart that produce 3000 hz. You are being dishonest again.

And not all music uses acoustic instruments anyways. Even if you exclude rap. Keep going.
jerim is offline  
post #516 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:37 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
That's not what you said above at all:



More dishonesty.
Yes it is. I just gave you some of the aspects of the test.

!. Untrained listeners
2. Non Audiophiles
3. Music they are unfamiliar with.
4. No prior knowledge or during the test what they are listening to (Cable X vs Cable Y)
5. Blind folded
6. System they are unfamiliar with.

If the subject is familiar with anything prior or during the test, they'll have a better chance of passing. Jeez. You really are a piece of work. I don't want them having any knowledge I'm testing them on their ability to hear the difference in a freaking cable and I did ask for you to submit anything you want for the test. You simply can't read.
drblank is offline  
post #517 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:45 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
There were several acustic instruments listed in the chart that produce 3000 hz. You are being dishonest again.

And not all music uses acoustic instruments anyways. Even if you exclude rap. Keep going.
What acoustic instrument that tunable to musical notes that produces 3000Hz as a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or overtone? Can you specify which tuned instruments that are typically tuned to A-440 which is the most common tuning?
drblank is offline  
post #518 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Go show me a musical note being played by a musical instrument that's properly tuned that's actually going to have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz.
I presume that standard references will suffice.

This seems as good as anything:

http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm



I highlighted 3 KHz with a bright blue vertical line. Note that almost every musical instrument listed has harmonics in that range. Now some might complain that 3 KHz does not correspond to any particular musical note, but we are talking harmonics which are not necessarily pure integer multiples of the fundamental note. Furthermore the frequencies we have for notes in most references relate to some specific tuning of the instrument such as A=440, which is only a guideline and one that musicans can adjust towards or away from at will.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that no instrument will ever have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz. Furthermore the performance of audio gear is not sharply defined, and the performance of just about any piece of audio gear at 3000 Hz is essentially unchanged from how it performs at a nearby frequency such as 3200 or 2800 Hz.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	musical instrument frequencies 3 KHz small.png
Views:	122
Size:	131.8 KB
ID:	220754  
arnyk is offline  
post #519 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:46 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
What you desire seems to involve the error of criterial biasing. The purpose of magic cables is supposed to be better sound quality. Listener's should not need to know how that improved sound quality is being produced, just that it is being produced.

My goal as test coordinator should involve teaching people how to hear improvements in sound quality of the kind that the magic cables produce.

ABX tests don't distinguish better or worse sound quality. They only capture information about differences in sound quality. Skepticism by informed parties based on past bad experience leads to serious doubts that magic cables make any significant changes to sound quality. Thus ABX tests with positive outcomes can be a big step forward in magic cable's struggle for credibility by proving that they can lead to audible changes of any kind.



I think that any listener with undamaged hearing or damage that is not too debilitating can detect any audible difference that exceeds those required for Just Noticable Detection (JND) by humans. JNDs can be related to observed technical differences such as distortion and noise.


Right now I've never had the opportunity to observe or test a magic cable that produced JNDs, despite fairly heroic attempts. I am of the understanding that you believe that you have cables that will reverse that trend. I think I would know such a thing by means of technical tests and reliable listening tests were it to appear in my presence.



Send me the magic cables and I will endeavor to accomplish what you desire if it is at all possible.
Go borrow some MIT Cables. I bought my own, go buy or borrow your own and quit being evasive. I should have known you guys don't want to man up. CHICKEN.

I am going to ask if they hear an improvement in sound quality between cables, but I'm not going to tell them they are listening to different cables.
drblank is offline  
post #520 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:51 AM
Member
 
jerim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
What acoustic instrument that tunable to musical notes that produces 3000Hz as a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or overtone? Can you specify which tuned instruments that are typically tuned to A-440 which is the most common tuning?
Already gave you a whole list. I can't help it if you ignore everything people post.
jerim is offline  
post #521 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Go borrow some MIT Cables. I bought my own, go buy or borrow your own and quit being evasive. I should have known you guys don't want to man up. CHICKEN.
It is not me who is being evasive. It is not my job to improve the profitability of MIT Cables Inc by first buying their products so that I will have the alleged privilege of further improving their profitability by showing that they are effective.

If MIT have any confidence at all in their product they will ship me the cables at their cost the fastest possible way based simply on your say-so, DrBlank. I don't understand why anybody who is so poorly respected by them that they would not take that action immediately, would advocate them so highly. If they don't respect you then they will not respect me, and this effort is 100% doomed to failure based on their lack of faith in their own product.
jaeelarr likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #522 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
I presume that standard references will suffice.

This seems as good as anything:

http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm



I highlighted 3 KHz with a bright blue vertical line. Note that almost every musical instrument listed has harmonics in that range. Now some might complain that 3 KHz does not correspond to any particular musical note, but we are talking harmonics which are not necessarily pure integer multiples of the fundamental note. Furthermore the frequencies we have for notes in most references relate to some specific tuning of the instrument such as A=440, which is only a guideline and one that musicans can adjust towards or away from at will.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that no instrument will ever have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz. Furthermore the performance of audio gear is not sharply defined, and the performance of just about any piece of audio gear at 3000 Hz is essentially unchanged from how it performs at a nearby frequency such as 3200 or 2800 Hz.
Remember back in the late 80's when record companies wanted to put in a notch filter around 3500hz in cd's to identify pirated tapes, and the flap it caused amongst audiophiles?

Now we can pay a cable company thousands for that privilege.
koturban is offline  
post #523 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Do you know how to read posts? I said they weren't using a frequency that was a "MUSICAL" frequency. The frequency 3000Hz isn't a fundamental, harmonic or inharmonic or even an overtone normally found in acoustic instruments. Serioulsy.

Adding a "EQ" in the normal sense is not the same way MIT or Transparent or others that implement filter boxes in their cables. They implement them in parallel not in series which is how traditional EQs are used. EQ's in series to cables is essentially altering the signal directly. EQ's in parallel is more just changing how the cable stores and releasing the energy of the frequencies to allow whatever the cable is fed to properly transmit the audio so we can hear what we are supposed to hear. Yeah, they are measured and MIT and I'm assuming others measure this as well.

In the Dagogo article, it was mentioned by Brisson that it takes him about a week to put a cable through the various tests he does. Also from the reading he mentions some of the test equipment he uses, but some of it was designed and built by him and his son specifically to do certain measurements. He also uses the proprietary s/w that does tests that they are only capable of performing since the s/w hasn't been released to the public. So, they are doing other tests that aren't on the website. I don't know if they plan on releasing additional and updated information, but I do know the are creating a CD of some sort, but I don't what's going to be on the CD and what it's supposed to be used for. I think they mentioned something along the lines of a test CD, but I have no idea other than that.
we've been through parallel versus series before. Parallel means the filter has less effect because some of the signal bypasses the filter. That's all it can mean.

YEs I can read. YOu said what you said, not what you meant. I assume it's because you don't know how to express what you mean, which will eviscerate efforts at communication.

So the F# two and a halfish octaves above middle C has a fundamental frequency of 1479.98 Hz, at A=440. It's second harmonic is at 2969.96 Hz. (That would also be the fourth harmonic of the F# one octave lower . . . . Similarly, the B above middle C has a fundamental frequency of 493.88 Hz at A=440, so it's 6th harmonic would be about 2963 Hz.) I'd be utterly shocked if anybody could implement a notch filter so narrow that it significantly affected 3KHz but didn't touch 2970 Hz. And even more shocked if that's what's going on in any MIT cable.

And of course any pitch bend on a guitar or glissando on a violin or other stringed instrument, or horn, from say F to G will pass through the "magic" 3KHz frequency (either as fundamental or even harmonic) on its way, not to mention the vagaries of Baroque tuning (A=415) for period instruments, or non-European scalar music (maybe we aren't supposed to believe such things exist . . . )

FTR, if you look at a 32 band graphic EQ, you will find that exactly zero of the EQ bands is centered on a frequency that precisely corresponds to the fundamental of any musical note. Yet those devices clearly EQ in an audible way.
JHAz is offline  
post #524 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,110
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 380
re 3000 Hz

Let us not forget our friends in the microtonal world...


I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest
RayDunzl is online now  
post #525 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,554
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I should have known you guys don't want to man up. CHICKEN.
I tried MIT 8' speaker cables, S-Video cable and audio interconnects many years ago. None produced an indication (actually none) of audio/video improvement to justify the prices.

Search on this forum using my "name" and "MIT" to verify.

Also IMHO, paying a premium for a speaker cable to alter the sound of my music is nonsense. If music doesn't sound good in my home, I probably need to change the pre/pro, amp, speakers or acoustics. Not the 14AWG speaker wire from Radio Shack.
jaeelarr likes this.
Ratman is offline  
post #526 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:39 AM
Member
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
The difference between an MIT cable and a Belden wire is a LOT easier to tell than this track, so more people would tell the difference in a test without too much trouble. Only problem is you guys won't take the Pepsi challenge, too afraid you'll have to change your stance on cables.
You have said multiple times it is very easy to tell MIT from lower cost speaker wire. Now you have been specific with Belden wire, thank you. Can you please describe what this obvious easy to tell difference is? Also if the difference is so obvious I would assume that one could record the playback of each in the room and hear it as well, is that possible?
noisebeam is offline  
post #527 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 09:51 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
I presume that standard references will suffice.

This seems as good as anything:

http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm



I highlighted 3 KHz with a bright blue vertical line. Note that almost every musical instrument listed has harmonics in that range. Now some might complain that 3 KHz does not correspond to any particular musical note, but we are talking harmonics which are not necessarily pure integer multiples of the fundamental note. Furthermore the frequencies we have for notes in most references relate to some specific tuning of the instrument such as A=440, which is only a guideline and one that musicans can adjust towards or away from at will.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that no instrument will ever have a fundamental, harmonic, inharmonic or over tone that's 3000Hz. Furthermore the performance of audio gear is not sharply defined, and the performance of just about any piece of audio gear at 3000 Hz is essentially unchanged from how it performs at a nearby frequency such as 3200 or 2800 Hz.
Obviously you don't understand what I'm talking vs "RANGE". Of course there are musical frequencies in that range, but when a note is played on an instrument, the frequency 3000Hz, isn't really going to part of that note played, unless the instrument is out of tune or they are purposely playing a note grossly wrong. RANGE is not good enough, sure the filter isn't just written for one frequency specifically, but it's based on certain frequencies they find in music.

Show me a tuned instrument who's fundamental, 2nd, 3rd harmonics are specifically 3000Hz. Since those and the fundamental are the most obvious frequencies heard.

In most recording studios, you will find them using parametric eq's, not multi band. Parametric allows to tune the desired frequency and some are better than others with their level of precision. But 3000Hz is just not common as you think. Yeah, a drummer might have something that might have that frequency, but they might eq it out. That happens a lot.. There might be something kind of close, but it's still not that frequency.

In orchestras, even the percussion instruments are generally tuned. Gongs, cymbals, bells, tympani, etc. and the better the percussionist, the more careful they are about tuning their instruments or picking out instruments that are tuned from the factory. If 3000Hz is pushed up to be as loud as the fundamental note that's supposed to be played, it might sound really "OFF" or offensive.

Last edited by drblank; 08-20-2014 at 11:04 AM.
drblank is offline  
post #528 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bismarck440's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NE Ohio... AKA the angry white planet Ohth
Posts: 1,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The more you spend on cables, the better they must be, plus you will feel better about having 'the best' Companies pay lots of $$ on reasearch on this, & would not dupe the public.

Same goes for pay & cable TV that comes into your house with ratios that can't be adjusted, & poor signals degraded by miles of cable... it must be better than OTA (Over the Air Broadcast) TV, because you are paying for it! ..... & the American public would readily willing to pay even more for it!

You want the best, & you deserve it!
jaeelarr likes this.
Bismarck440 is offline  
post #529 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 10:23 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
You have said multiple times it is very easy to tell MIT from lower cost speaker wire. Now you have been specific with Belden wire, thank you. Can you please describe what this obvious easy to tell difference is? Also if the difference is so obvious I would assume that one could record the playback of each in the room and hear it as well, is that possible?
record the room? Well, first off, you would probably need to make sure the room was a proper treated/designed room so there wasn't any room problems effecting what the microphone would pick up. The other issue is what mike, cables, mike pre amp, A/D converter being used, etc., etc. to get as accurate as possible. I've never done this, but I've been talking to others to see if they could do some accurate recordings of products they make to see if they could post recordings to see if we could tell. The other aspect is how they are played back. Obviously, this would be a fairly long process to see how well it could be done to accurately reproduce what's being played in a room vs a recording of it. I'm sure it might be able but it would probably take a lot of tests to do this.

Belden wire is pretty standard stuff. Obviously, they have different gauges and slight variations of speaker cables, but I don't think people are going to tell much difference as long as the gauge is the proper gauge. I can certainly get Belden wire or some other garden variety twisted pair wire that's commonly used. That's not that difficult for me to use and throw in. From the tests I've seen, there probably isn't going to be much difference if I use Zip Cord or Twisted 12 gauge from any company, I just listed Belden since it's a commonly used cable mfg.

What's going to be the obvious differences? Well, I can tell you what I've heard, but you actually need to do that test to see what you hear, because we all hear things slightly differently as well as what other conditions are different. But from a general perspective, which is about all I can tell you, there should probably be no harshness with the MIT cables, better clarity from the lows all the way up, and it's going to allow you to hear more detail. I mean, basically just about everything should sound better, it's common for people to hear tracks that are normally difficult to hear a little or a lot easier. I normally don't listen to that heavy metal music where it's so distorted, processed, compressed where it probably doesn't matter about anything, so I can't comment on using that or even recommending that as music to judge anything with. I generally will use recordings with acoustic instruments, vocals, some electronic based that has both acoustic and none acoustic with lots of tracks.

It's always good, based on my experience to use a variety of recordings to see what the cables do and don't do. But the most common and obvious to me is because it's the first test I do, is I take out certain recordings where they have certain cymbal crashes that were recorded pretty hot and if it can reproduce that cymbal clearly and without offensive harshness, that is the first test I personally do since I'm familiar with the recording but it tells me immediately if it's a cable I can live with. So far, only a couple of cables have passed that test so I know the recording isn't distorted to be offensive. The most important thing I can recommend is listen carefully over a period of time recordings you know well and listen to the low level aspects of the recordings. Also keep the volume levels down below 85dB ave. and even lower. Some cables don't do as well when the music is played at lower levels. And that goes for systems in general. I don't know what volume level you normally listen to, but it's good to know and keep track of as to not cause hearing damage (short term or long term).

I hope this helps. For me, I've had those "Holy $hit" moments with certain cables and these, Transparent are typically the ones that will give you that when comparing to others that aren't so good. I've literally freaked out at how much different things sound, despite what others might tell you. I've read other reviews by other people I don't know that have the same reaction. With the cheapest Transparent interconnect on a cheap pair of powered speakers, it was a "holy $hit" experience. I wasn't expecting as big of a change then what I heard. And that's with their cheapest interconnects. It's just their cables are designed to do this and with every jump, you get another level of detail. I hope to be able to listen to the MIT top of the line speaker cables and interconnects on a familiar system as compared to what I have. Personally, if you have a dealer with these cables, it's probably worthwhile just to check em out and first listen to lower end cables first to hear what difference you might hear. It's not every day you get to listen to $50K speaker cables. I think it would be at least a memorable experience to compare against the more affordable models just to see what difference you hear.

Last edited by drblank; 08-20-2014 at 10:34 AM.
drblank is offline  
post #530 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 10:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,110
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 380
drblank - you keep mentioning Transparent as a contender.

So I looked at an autopsy report on one:

http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=3191.0

Whaddaya think?

I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest
RayDunzl is online now  
post #531 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 10:57 AM
Senior Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I must admit that I have only ever had one "Holy s*&t" moment on anything other than new speakers. When I was in college many years ago, I had a friend with a very good, direct drive turntable (a top of the line Technics) and the same arm and cartridge I had. I had a Thorens 125 model TT. His amp had two phono inputs and we switched between the TTs playing the same record. The Thorens sound stage seemed to spread beyond the speakers and the depth, imaging, and transparency of the sound was markedly better than the Technics. There could be many reasons for that difference, but it was definitely a difference we could both hear very easily.

I did have oxidized speaker cables once and new cables enhanced the sound immensely, but the replacements were just standard 14 gauge wire. I've actually tried some higher end cables that friends kindly allowed me to borrow (but nothing as expensive as MIT) trying to recapture that "Thorens moment." I never did any blind testing, but I did listen to and compared many different musical passages on both analog and digital equipment (including direct-to-disc and well-mastered digital sources), paying great attention to sequences where I thought differences might be most apparent. The upshot was, although I tried very hard, I could not hear significant differences among any of the cables, so I stuck with my 14 gauge.

Best,

Brian

Last edited by briansxx; 08-20-2014 at 11:00 AM.
briansxx is offline  
post #532 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 10:59 AM
Senior Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
drblank - you keep mentioning Transparent as a contender.

So I looked at an autopsy report on one:

http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=3191.0

Whaddaya think?
That's the best laugh I've had in a long time! Thank you!

Best,

Brian
briansxx is offline  
post #533 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
drblank - you keep mentioning Transparent as a contender.

So I looked at an autopsy report on one:

http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=3191.0

Whaddaya think?
There have been reported cases where people opened up network boxes and found nothing at all—save a cable running through it.

At least there was something there which, depending on what it is and what speakers it's attached to, could have some measurable effect on frequency response.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #534 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
*etc*
You write an awful lot of words, but there's really not much there, there.
krabapple is offline  
post #535 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 11:24 AM
Senior Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I did enjoy the reference to the Bybee Quantum Purifier in one of the posts on the Transparent page. This device eliminates noise at the "quantum mechanical level" to produce sonic images of astonishing clarity. Starting at only $200 each, I don't know how any self-respecting high-end audiophile can live without several of them.

Fool, money, parted, etc. etc.

Brian
briansxx is offline  
post #536 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Obviously you don't understand what I'm talking vs "RANGE". Of course there are musical frequencies in that range, but when a note is played on an instrument, the frequency 3000Hz, isn't really going to part of that note played, unless the instrument is out of tune or they are purposely playing a note grossly wrong. RANGE is not good enough, sure the filter isn't just written for one frequency specifically, but it's based on certain frequencies they find in music.

Show me a tuned instrument who's fundamental, 2nd, 3rd harmonics are specifically 3000Hz. Since those and the fundamental are the most obvious frequencies heard.

In most recording studios, you will find them using parametric eq's, not multi band. Parametric allows to tune the desired frequency and some are better than others with their level of precision. But 3000Hz is just not common as you think. Yeah, a drummer might have something that might have that frequency, but they might eq it out. That happens a lot.. There might be something kind of close, but it's still not that frequency.

In orchestras, even the percussion instruments are generally tuned. Gongs, cymbals, bells, tympani, etc. and the better the percussionist, the more careful they are about tuning their instruments or picking out instruments that are tuned from the factory. If 3000Hz is pushed up to be as loud as the fundamental note that's supposed to be played, it might sound really "OFF" or offensive.
What is the Q of a parametric setting that significantly affecets 3khz but has no significant effect at 2970Hz. Any idea whether anybody would ever use such a setting or why?
I assume you aren't familiar with glissandos from 200 year old music. But have you never heard ANY Clapton or Hendrix? I know its only 40 years old, and great blues slide only goes back to maybe the 20s but gosh how limited is your music listening
JHAz is offline  
post #537 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 11:32 AM
Senior Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Well, according to Bybee, no cable can ever produce truly transparent sound. To quote them:

"During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors. Unwanted quantum noise energy dissipates as heat within the Quantum Purifier rather than emerging as a layer of contamination residue over the audio/video information.

The benefits of this process extend beyond the physical length of the Quantum Purifier. As electrons speed through the purifier, a “slipstream” effect is formed which facilitates current flow in the surrounding conductors of the playback system. Introducing Bybee Quantum Purification into the electron path reduces quantum noise and increases signal velocity, resulting in performance improvement beyond what is attainable by any cable alone, no matter how well designed." (emphasis mine).

I studied some pretty advanced physics in college, but I don't recognize any of the terms/concepts used in the above.



Brian

Last edited by briansxx; 08-20-2014 at 11:45 AM.
briansxx is offline  
post #538 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
Obviously you don't understand what I'm talking vs "RANGE". Of course there are musical frequencies in that range, but when a note is played on an instrument, the frequency 3000Hz, isn't really going to part of that note played, unless the instrument is out of tune or they are purposely playing a note grossly wrong. RANGE is not good enough, sure the filter isn't just written for one frequency specifically, but it's based on certain frequencies they find in music.

Show me a tuned instrument who's fundamental, 2nd, 3rd harmonics are specifically 3000Hz. Since those and the fundamental are the most obvious frequencies heard.
I did as requested and the response lacks logic and reason. It is all double-talk like so many of the MIT white papers. Double talk is a true sign of a liar and charlatan in most cases. The remaining cases generally involve a very confused mind.
jaeelarr likes this.

Last edited by arnyk; 08-20-2014 at 12:29 PM.
arnyk is offline  
post #539 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
The problem here might be the choice of MIT cables over which to debate. Since these cables have filters attached to them I assume they might have a sonic signature. In our blind tests we had one interconnect cable pair have a sonic signature. Upon autopsy we discovered that the conductor was wound into a coil so the cable measured quite high in terms of inductance.

Our position is that a properly made cable will not display an audible difference from another properly made cable. MIT and our coil wound cable are not properly made cables. So both sides could be correct here. It is possible to make a cable into an equalizer and MIT could be one of those. Those who hear one will sense the audible difference. In the meantime, the rest of us who have done bias controlled tests on cables understand that properly made cables don't have a sound. Perhaps it is better so say that the vast majority of high end cables are snake oil. The few remaining are engineering abominations because the purpose of making a cable should not be for it to affect the signal it carries audibly..
Bingo, and really there probably wouldn't be much of a stink if they called them passive filters instead of "cables".
If that's how one chooses to tune their set-up they can fill their boots and the argument turns into preference not existence.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #540 of 595 Old 08-20-2014, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Any speculation on who drblank actually is? Bruce Bisson himself? The kid? A dealer?

Perhaps if drblank is a man rather than a chicken he should avail himself of the Randi challenge and bank a million bucks....LOL!

lovinthehd is online now  
Closed Thread Audio theory, Setup and Chat

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