Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 19:20:27 GMT -6
Oh, now we are back at the old point of argumentation that is one of the greatest typical audiophile argumentation strategies. Explaining, why ABX-Test, while valid in every scientific context, should not be valid for audio. I claim that long term revealed differences like you describe are more likely to be a psychological phenomenon than real differences. Btw, how do you compare different mixes with very small changes? Will one reveal it's quality only over hearing it over and over for some time and can you really say then if it's better or worse if you couldn't before? Just as a thinking point...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 28, 2015 20:08:19 GMT -6
The differences in sound I was referring to were done with no expectation of one version or brand being superior to the other. I had no idea of the price differences between what I was listening to in most instances. Sometimes, I was asked by designers and manufacturers to compare some updated design to the current model, so I knew the approximate value, but since the price was essentially the same, it didn't make any difference to me.
Maybe I'm simply different than most people, and have unusual sensitivities and skills, or maybe not. An answer to the original question might be that audiophiles might have trained themselves to notice details that audio engineers don't focus on, and vice versa. But in my opinion, they're very very similar.
Saying something is a "typical" argument strategy doesn't mean it isn't true. Remember my story about jitter, which bugged me to no end, long before it was identified, made general knowledge and rectified in some cases. The majority said it was impossible, and that I was hallucinating. After taking grief about things like that, and being proved right time and again, I learned to trust my own judgement, regardless of what someone else says or does in a test. That doesn't mean I'm closed minded, I have much to learn about gear, audio engineering, and production techniques, and some of the experts here have been of great value and I truly appreciate them, including Mr. Campbell.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 28, 2015 20:26:30 GMT -6
Tony, that link led to a lot of pages, and I found it a little confusing. I did give it a try, but just don't have the time to read all the pages all the way through. Again, I have no way of knowing the skill level or natural ability of those people listening in that test. I'm not saying anything other than I don't equate my skills with any average set of people being tested when it comes to matters concerning audio. I've been through too many situations where I was challenged by pedantic audiophiles with no music in their soul, and though I'm not including you in that category, I only have so much time and patience I'm willing to devote to debate online so please forgive me if I eventually bow out. You know the line, "once bitten, twice shy".
Jim Williams, can you say a little more about that experience with the power cord please? If I understand Tony correctly, he believes you couldn't identify one cable over the other in a test, and maybe he's right, but in the real world, not some test situation, you heard a clear difference, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 20:38:04 GMT -6
I beg to differ. I was trying to be polite by writing "typical" purposely. The logic in the audiophile argumentation is wrong. If anyone claims ABX testing is not valid and inherently flawed, and there are better methods, than it's up to those who claim this to actually prove it. Otherwise it just remains an unproven claim. And up to now i never read an unflawed inductive proof or any sincere study to anyhow statistically prove it. So IF ABX test are inherently flawed, why do they work and why is the audiophile world incapable of providing anything better? And - the comparison to the jitter problem is *not* valid. Audiophile theories mostly come to the conclusion that *science* is invalid and there is something beyond measurable world, which i say is as esoteric as homeopathy or tarot. Jitter IS a physically measurable phenomenon and therefore never proved that science is invalid in itself, but that science needs to prove every thesis in peer review. Exactly this is, what audiophile theories want to prevent. Provable, peer-reviewable processes for comparison...for a reason, i say. It's not good for marketing status symbols... I do not say that the same things do not happen in pro-audio world. But engineer should rely on knowledge rather than belief whereever possible....
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 28, 2015 20:40:49 GMT -6
I think it's more about what the power supply is looking at than the effect of the power cable on the AC. I've heard just a cheap shielded power cable make a surprising improvement.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919
|
Post by ericn on Aug 28, 2015 20:47:50 GMT -6
I beg to differ. I was trying to be polite by writing "typical" purposely. The logic in the audiophile argumentation is wrong. If anyone claims ABX testing is not valid and inherently flawed, and there are better methods, than it's up to those who claim this to actually prove it. Otherwise it just remains an unproven claim. And up to now i never read an unflawed inductive proof or any sincere study to anyhow statistically prove it. So IF ABX test are inherently flawed, why do they work and why is the audiophile world incapable of providing anything better? And - the comparison to the jitter problem is *not* valid. Audiophile theories mostly come to the conclusion that *science* is invalid and there is something beyond measurable world, which i say is as esoteric as homeopathy or tarot. Jitter IS a physically measurable phenomenon and therefore never proved that science is invalid in itself, but that science needs to prove every thesis in peer review. Exactly this is, what audiophile theories want to prevent. Provable, peer-reviewable processes for comparison...for a reason, i say. It's not good for marketing status symbols... I do not say that the same things do not happen in pro-audio world. But engineer should rely on knowledge rather than belief whereever possible.... I hate abx blind tests always did pretty well but I have found time and time again let me have time listening take note and I can give you a far better critique, It's not about can I tell , it's about what makes them different what do they right and what they do wrong !
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 28, 2015 20:52:26 GMT -6
The problem with blind tests of wire is that it's pretty well impossible to exaggerate the effects of wire to properly train a listener to detect it. Without proper training in what to focus on, the results will always be random and hence meaningless unless you use an insane number of subjects and trials or one happens to stumble across an identifiable artifact. Random results do not prove something to be inaudible.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 28, 2015 21:01:53 GMT -6
Thank you Bob, you said what I was trying to say much more elegantly than I did.
Smallbutfine, my mentioning of my experience with audiophiles denying jitter before it was finally acknowledged by the them was just to help folks here understand where I'm coming from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 21:07:46 GMT -6
So, if the difference actually IS audible, someone, a specific person who is trained to hear cable differences should always have a better chance to say in a blind test, if two pieces of audio are the same or different, than 50:50, right? So it would be easy to prove a claim that one cable is sounding different. Would you agree? Otherwise it's the same as if it's inaudible to me. Sorry, but i come from a scientific and critical point of view...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 21:24:27 GMT -6
This would at least prove that ONE person can hear the difference between the 2 cables i.e. the one who actually claims he can? It is not needed to prove that with more than one subject, but only a number of tests that make a significant difference to random...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 28, 2015 21:44:06 GMT -6
My friend Michael Fremer is a respected authority in the audiophile world, and if memory serves, he's done just that smallbutfine. He's taken all sorts of challenges and tests. I believe in the test I'm thinking of, he chose correctly more than 80% of the time. I suspect that under different circumstances than a blind test, he would have been even more accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 21:45:45 GMT -6
Actually, i really would like to believe that we don't understand cables for audio enough with our world of resistance, capacitance, shielding and mechanical connections... I want to believe it, but i can't...there is too much evidence for what counts when you produce a good audio cable because mechanics and electromagnetics is a very well known and researched field of physics...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 21:48:54 GMT -6
My friend Michael Fremer is a respected authority in the audiophile world, and if memory serves, he's done just that smallbutfine. He's taken all sorts of challenges and tests. I believe in the test I'm thinking of, he chose correctly more than 80% of the time. I suspect that under different circumstances than a blind test, he would have been even more accurate. So this would be the guy the audiophile cable manufacturers should fear...because he could debunk invalid claims of "better than competitor", right? Seems legit.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 28, 2015 22:00:42 GMT -6
You're totally right there Smallbutfine. He truly calls it like he hears it. Those people who know him find his integrity beyond reproach. Where other colleagues accept potentially influencing perks on the side, he passes. He's debunked many claims of very expensive manufacturers in print, and at the same time recommended many very expensive products to those who can afford them. Sometimes his reviews can make or break a product, and yet, even those who've been negatively affected by a review, acknowledge his fairness and thoroughness.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 28, 2015 22:07:16 GMT -6
abx blinds are totally legit if they're set up properly, there are people who know what to listen for, and people who don't, i've listened to plenty of gear that reads out exactly the same on measuring equipment, and they sound very different to my ears when AB'd, the reason i don't like to take internet ABX tests is because i'm not intimately familiar with, or comfortable with that person's gear, i need to stick with what I know and learn at my own pace.
What Sir Bob said is true imo, it's about what the psu see's, if you have clean steady, filtered, noiseless balanced power, traveling through a properly rated cord of decent quality, it's going to like it, if you have a $2,000 power cord attached to filthy, apartment building mains, the psu ain't gonna like it. So no matter how you slice it, if your spending $250 on a power cord before you take care of the other much larger issues, it's an utterly foolish decision to even bother with it, it's putting the cart before the horse and pretending it works better.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 29, 2015 6:33:46 GMT -6
Oversimplified "science" that ignores the science of hearing is nonsense. There are huge variations from individual to individual depending on hearing damage. We're also lots more sensitive in reflective and noisy environments so headphone-based tests are pretty useless. The fact that we often can hear the effect of cables is really an indictment of incompetent engineering by audio manufacturers. It's about how the cable interacts with the gear and not the sound of the cable.
There's a famous story about an EBU lossy audio coding standards proposal that had passed banks of double-blind tests only to have an engineer at Harman point out an artifact he immediately heard that everybody easily recognized from his description. It's like looking for a fly in a room using a lens having a very narrow depth of field. Once you know where to look it's easy.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 29, 2015 7:27:58 GMT -6
I recall the difference between AES and SPDIF between same equipment in a mastering room with Pass and Dunlavy being easily identifiable. Same clock, so what's the damage/difference?
Solid silver wire seems to be one of those things that pretty much everyone hears. Some people are crazy about it, some people hate it. Build that out to silver wire audio transformers....
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 29, 2015 8:06:01 GMT -6
Agreed, Personally I've heard diffs in interconnect cabling, I'm not contesting that, power cords are much more blunt force items, and through my own experience I understand their relevance to be at around the same level as deciding to put a chrome radiator hose vs a regular radiator hose in ur hotrod. Putting dragster wheels on ur VW bug ain't gonna make it faster. If Martin had had all that other incredibly important stuff ironed out, my response would have been much different.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 29, 2015 8:36:34 GMT -6
A proper AES/EBU connection uses an ungrounded transformer on each end that can eliminate ground loops an incompetently designed SPDIF connection can cause.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 29, 2015 8:49:46 GMT -6
So, if the difference actually IS audible, someone, a specific person who is trained to hear cable differences should always have a better chance to say in a blind test, ... There is no such thing as general cable differences. They would need to be trained to hear specific artifacts which would probably require using specific gear. I don't think a meaningful ABX test of wire is possible short of really gross problems.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Aug 29, 2015 9:19:10 GMT -6
About 15 years ago I wired up a bunch of Kimber wire inside of a console for a customer. He wanted all 4 versions installed to compare. One was stranded copper, one solid copper, one stranded silver, one solid silver. This was a 7" run from the Soundcraft 6000 input pcb to the TKD faders.
The console was brought to the shop and I plugged in a mic and began listening. The rest of the console was highly modified so it wasn't a problem with resolution or color.
I set the gains up equally and patched in my 'bench' Unidyne III SM57. Then I made a chart to which channel (1 to 4) I believed which wire was used. No, I didn't know nor was I told.
Took me less than 5 minutes. I nailed every one of those wire choices, the differences were not hard for me. It was personnal choice for me between both silver wires, I prefered the slightly more focused 26 awg solid core "Black Pearls" Kimber wire over the 19 awg stranded silver.
Yes, my Delta console is wired with Kimber Black Pearls for each TD fader. I also use it for capsule to jfet wiring in all my mics.
I have an 'aftermarket" audiophool AC cable wired into my Adcom GFA 545 power amp and the AC cable used for critical outboard, like a mic preamp. High end wire is iceing on the cake. Best to improve the rest of the system before hand or it may reveal the uglies. I found copper to have more of a 'sound' than silver. It has a clogged quality and is harsh in the mids with an open system.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 29, 2015 9:31:24 GMT -6
I say 15 pages minimum...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 29, 2015 9:54:12 GMT -6
Why do I get the feeling that if I had said I hear the same thing Jim just said, I'd get pushback? Jim basically described my experience with cabling in general.
Why folks, (not you specifically Tony ;-) seem to take issue escapes me. So, Jim said it took him basically no time at all to hear the differences cabling can make, and made a choice based on his personal preference. That's all I've ever said, I hear differences in cables, and choose what I prefer. I've found differences in the sound I hear when changing out power cords are rarely as dramatic as interconnects or speaker wire. Also, I never said I was against handling all the potential sources like Tony suggests before trying cabling out, or that a cable choice was more important.
I never claimed I had answers why, but Bob hears differences with cabling, and offered a few reasons why.
As for blind tests, there are absolutely some questionable aspects regarding results. Some serious engineers here have pointed some of the shortcomings out, so I won't repeat them.
Sheesh, after all that, even Tony admitted he hears differences with interconnects ! :-)
I'm not an engineer, not even a knowledgable amateur one, and I certainly don't have time to make every post a treatise. What I've heard is real, not my imagination, and I'm about done with taking folks who suggest that seriously. How much more corroboration of my general point is needed for it to be acknowledged?
As for the thread subject, I think audiophiles have trained themselves to hear different things than audio engineers. There's some crossover, but some things are more exclusive to one or the other. So, yes, they're hearing things we aren't, and vice versa.
When Bob said "There's a famous story about an EBU lossy audio coding standards proposal that had passed banks of double-blind tests only to have an engineer at Harman point out an artifact he immediately heard that everybody easily recognized from his description. It's like looking for a fly in a room using a lens having a very narrow depth of field. Once you know where to look it's easy." I felt relieved.
That was exactly my point about finding things over time, and once you're aware of it, it's completely obvious. Once you see "the fly in the room", or the "spot on a tie" I mentioned, it's easy to point it out to others, but it might take some people time to focus enough to "see the fly". What if I had said people were mistaken after "banks" of double blind tests were done? Until I could easily point the issue out to everyone, by the standards of our conversation here, I'd have been vilified.
Jim, when I ever get my own studio, I hope I can PM you and ask for a little cable advice, and Tony, I hope I can ask you for some help regarding basic power source wiring and balanced systems if I ever get my own place, cause I'm close to clueless there.
I'm moving on now.
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Aug 29, 2015 13:01:58 GMT -6
Jim Williams said; "It was personnal choice for me between both silver wires, I prefered the slightly more focused 26 awg solid core "Black Pearls" Kimber wire over the 19 awg stranded silver. I also use it for capsule to jfet wiring in all my mics.
Jim, Where can I get some Kimber wire to use on my Mics?
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Aug 29, 2015 15:54:29 GMT -6
My favorite Kimber wire is either the AGSS 19 gauge stranded silver or the solid core 26 gauge Black Pearls. I use the stranded wire for short mic cables, the stereo mix console feeds to the ADC and some S/PDIF cables using Canare 75 ohm "RCA" connectors.
I first heard it at Ray's factory in Ogden, Utah. The total lack of background noise is astonishing. Even though it's an unshielded 3 braid, it has much less random background noise than any copper mic cable. It's almost like there is a noise gate, but you hear all the audio.
The solid core is for fixed installations. Ray was very kind and gave me a stash/endrun of it. Send me an email and I'll send a piece. Best used with a capsule to a jfet or tube grid.
|
|