Like Rob I just want to be sure I'm not 'hearing things' in the literal sense when I hear a difference. I need to know it's a real difference rather than just a psychological effect. No doubt that's a hang over from the three years I spent in the lab for my Biotech degree. So far for power cables there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to suggest they can sound any different.
The differences I was absolutely certain I could hear between power chords miraculously disappeared when sighted bias was removed from any listening tests. Maybe other people have better ears and better hifi, or maybe they just have lower standards of proof, it doesn't matter which, we are both happy with our own 'truths'.
Good thread boys. Gold stars all round. And I agree - there are plenty of straw men being set up out there. Which is silly. It's a stereotyping strategy that doesn't get to the nubs of the issues. Which this thread is doing. If I may flatter us so after a few glasses of Chablis...
After my observation on 'Objectivist' and 'Subjectivist' (bad parts highlighted) and Ben's behaviour after a few, I want to add my musings on cables - particularly power cables (both AC & DC) & speaker cables.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why any power cable should make any difference at all - in fact it irritates me that proponents of the benefits of such cables let themselves (note almost 'us') down with psuedo-scientific claims, shoddy reasoning and FUD....irritated because even I can reason like that, and I want something better to try to understand.
I feel just as strongly that a *strictly* objective view on the same issues seems to miss something - for example in my system the DC cable I bought sounded better that the factory supplied jobbie. Could I blindly identify the difference? Maybe not.... But am I that shallow? I wanted to return the cable for a refund, I was only trying it out of curiosity - so my expectation bis surely worked against cable belief? Does that itself prove a (lack of) difference? The answer is obvious. Jury's out then, AFAIC.
Speaker cables then - can they make a difference? Absolutely, in my experience, though seeking to understand the differences presented by different materials and types of construction by reading the supposed informed objective assessments on the internet (I know, I know...) leads me to conclude there physically cannot be a difference. Except there flaming is - every time!
I accept my amplifier is as temperamental as it's designer when it comes to such cabling matters, and my system is designed to function as one with it's cabling which has to be low capacitance etc (yada yada...) and has no protective circuitary. This might colour my perception on such matters to be sure, as my rig may be reacting to changes of cabling as violently as a cat in a jet wash.
I am also a 'burn in believer' in particular after owning several Beresford DACs which by themselves prove the existence of burn in. But I have also had the oppotunity to hear *more than one* Young DAC from new and and I am damned if I detect more than a hint of change over time. Certainty not enough to guarantee it is outside the realm of imagination. So even that is not consistent!
I principle I am ready to believe such differences in cables, burn in etc are all in the mind, and perhaps have to do with the mind becoming attuned to different presentations from new kit over time. After all, why isn't a pre-burned in cable worth more than a new set of cable?
Then again, I go and listen again and things aren't so clear cut. I rather wish they were. I therefore find both overly subjective posturing and rigidly objective lecturing tedious and unfulfilling, but I have even fewer answers myself.
Rob, Please stay IN the discussion. I'd be fascinated to take you up on such an offer. I'm genuinely curious. I've never been clever enough to understand the physics behind electronics. Obviously that doesn't get in the way of my enjoying recorded music via the subjectivist route, but i've always been curious to try to learn or understand. :-) Where are you?
Hi Ben, Dave and others commenting.
My comments were made out of respect for the forum. I believe firmly that if a forum has a clear leaning then that should be respected. This forum has a very welcome lack of conflict and aggression and that's the main reason I read and post here, even though the views are often at odds with my own.
Anyway I'm in Walthamstow, East London if anyone fancies a visit.
Thanks Rob. I hoped that's what you were saying, but I also felt I needed to be a little clearer about my own stance. That stance, of course, feeds through in Chews, but I'm not the only mod here, hence me emphasising that I'm talking for me.
I'd like to take you up on your offer sometime Rob, but it'll need to be some months hence, unfortunately.
Like Rob I just want to be sure I'm not 'hearing things' in the literal sense when I hear a difference. I need to know it's a real difference rather than just a psychological effect. No doubt that's a hang over from the three years I spent in the lab for my Biotech degree. So far for power cables there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to suggest they can sound any different.
The differences I was absolutely certain I could hear between power chords miraculously disappeared when sighted bias was removed from any listening tests. Maybe other people have better ears and better hifi, or maybe they just have lower standards of proof, it doesn't matter which, we are both happy with our own 'truths'.
Yup. I agree with both of you. One year in a Physics lab and three years in a Psychology one, plus some Philosophy of Science make me sensitive to experimental design, scientific methodology and what an experiment proves or doesn't prove.
I agree that the terminology of 'objectivist' and 'subjectivist' does have a lot of unhealthy baggage. May be we're guilty of setting up our own straw man in this thread - of the objectivist v subjectivist debate itself - to smugly knock dowm...
But there is something of substance going on here I'm sure, even if political and personal issues can dig what are actually interesting points of view into entrenched 'us and them' camps.
And, if there are 2 theoretical extremes, that real people may or may not inhabit but certainly tend towards, might those extremes be characterised as:
1. Objectivist: That 2 products that measure identically in every respect will and must, sound identical in a double blind llistening test.
2. Subjectivist: That 2 products that sound different in a sighted listening test do actually sound different, and therefore must have actual technical differences that simply are not, or cannot, be currently measured (except by our ears and brains).
Doc, you might be right with those dictionary definitions, I certainly don't consider myself fitting into the description you give. I would say that I am measurement and objectivity lead. But I'm just as willing to reject a measurement as I am to accept it if an unbiased, sight unseen test, proves there is something else at play.
I can't comment on other peoples blind tests, but I know mine leave nothing as a potential source of bias. It's very much a case of shut the fuck up and swap the cables when you're my ABX bitch.
I spend my working life looking at how people make decisions, particularly purchasing decisions, I'm very well versed in the 'science of choice' and what affects those choices and always look to remove any potential bias from any tests I run/take part in.
When I hear a difference in power cables, I'll start questioning the science. When I hear someone else hears a difference I naturally question their scientific rigour first. If I'm wrong science will catch up you boys on the cutting edge of hearing... ;-)
I think probably I'm an objectivist at heart. In the past I've roped in the wife to switch ICs cables round while I hid in the kitchen, and I certainly cherish the light that objective scientific method throws on other areas of my interest. I think I just lack the technical know how to make sense of the complicated objective side of physics/acoustics, etc.,... My 1990 GCSE physics paper was the last time I calculated ohms.
Until I acquire the knowledge...
"Sorry I forgot the gimp mask Si, but subjectively speaking, I'd say that's a higher capacitance cable..." :
About two years ago I hosted a bake-off where a number of cables were compared sighted,
Listeners were asked to comment and give views as the cables were swapped. Some quite strong differences were expressed, with one in particular, a length of Deltec Black Slink being clearly preferred and given attributes often repeated in reviews at the time of release. I then revealed that all I'd done was fumble around giving the impression of swapping the cables, and therefore they'd been listening to and commenting on the same cable.
Around five years ago I demonstrated a Naim Flatcap against a Hicap.
The listener thought the Hicap better as you would expect.
Except that the Hicap box actually contained a small Maplin 24v supply.
Those examples in no way show that cables or PSUs don't make a difference.
They do however highlight that we are all easily influenced. It can only be a good thing to remove those influences.
re 1. I don't think that any common measurements are actually useful, almost every amp these days measures good enough to assume they all sound the same under normal conditions. The thing is, no one gives you measurements for how they fail under load in various use situations. Why not two additional amp measurements showing how they clip under voltage and current drop? This might at least go some way to explaining things like 'house sound' and why some amps work well with certain speakers in a way that people can integrate into their buying choices.
It's only when someone in a marketing dept gets their teeth into measurement and finds some way to make it sexy and a worthwhile selling point that this will ever happen. It's just too easy to sell fear, uncertainty and doubt for this to be likely to ever happen. We'd need a 'quality renaissance' before this will take place, a rejection of quantity over quality and a focus on the value of things rather than just their price.
HIfi marketers don't appear to be cut from forward thinking cloth. Example, I was the first person to start Audiolab threads on many forums, their marketing depts hadn't even thought of it. The 8200CDQ thread on PInk Fish has been split 4 times to make it manageable for the servers and totals well in excess of 100,000 page views. The IAG marketing dept are so backwards I bet they don't even have a methodology to track the value of and integrate things like forum posts into their marketing.
re point 2. That is the singular most important factor in being able to judge how a piece of kit 'sounds' as opposed to any other feelings your 'experience' of the product might generate.
Interesting read those. Thanks. So what are the subjectivist counterpoints? I think I know some of the objections to the 1st point, but what's the objection to the 2nd point? I understand that this place is seen as a 'subjectivist' forum, but I'm confused about what this might be seen to mean... :-/
I understand that this place is seen as a 'subjectivist' forum, but I'm confused about what this might be seen to mean... :-/
Part of that has to be where the forum came from - it's birth place - though as I think we are seeing here, there is far more to it.
However, I think this is probably the best forum discussion I've seen on the subject precisely because it has discarded the labels and examined the different positions in greater detail.
I understand that this place is seen as a 'subjectivist' forum, but I'm confused about what this might be seen to mean... :-/
Part of that has to be where the forum came from - it's birth place - though as I think we are seeing here, there is far more to it.
However, I think this is probably the best forum discussion I've seen on the subject precisely because it has discarded the labels and examined the different positions in greater detail.
But we weren't there for the subjectivism. We were there, in the first place, for the gear that we'd chosen.
hi guys, what a fine thread of conversation, the whole measurement vs end product thing is certainly most intriguing , i take my stand point on ""have a listen in your system and to hell with the measurement"" ,because i often see conflict between what i perceive to be good sounding and how that thing measures, considering i will use the product as part of a system to listen to music do i trust the bad measurements or the sonic ability of a product, with cable though i dont think that the current measurements that keep being quoted by some as 'all that matters' even come close to giving hard evidence as to whats going on with it as a part of the system so i am left to judge for myself by listening , if a cable was to show no difference from another in one of my systems i would still be in no position to say that cable will make no difference in another until i try it, as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone? this is to the heart of my issues with hi fi users needing to know why something sounds a certain way and trying to asses it via its measurements , why bother when the folks that made it cant do it, i so wish i could just look at a set of figures and know exactly how it will interact with my system but i cant, this alone is thee golden rule with this nerdy little hobby that gives very cool and wonderful music, listen first then if it sounds bad consider the measurements to see if there is an obvious mismatch electrically with the rest of the system and look toward listening to the better matched equipment but,you must still listen to the' electrically' better matched components and assess again, we need the testers and measures but they too must keep an open mind and be willing to relearn a few things, those that do tend to discover stuff that bring improvements for us all to enjoy. all the very best guys, matt
Rawl, well, cross sectional area is indicative of nothing in terms of electronics, I know of no engineer who designs RF cable termination based on the CSA, just the impedance at the required frequency. I know quite a few RF and digital engineers having worked for a graphics chip fab for the best part for a decade.
All of them would look at impedance and RLC when trying to characterise the best termination of a power line in a circuit, particularly with respect to ringing, but you can't do that without a decent high bandwidth scope and the device under test sat in front of you. Certainly no one could just 'guess' the best values it would have to be arrived at empirically. All that said, none of the guys I know would expect there to be any difference simply by substituting one short length of wire for another in this application- were it 192khz signal then it would be different. By 3v DC, forget it.
It's funny that you think "I am unable to hear a change" when trying very different cables. I would characterize it as there is no difference to be heard, and most electronics engineers and science text books would agree with me. I always love it when there are differences to be heard, but usually experience has shown there is often a simple explanation at hand rather than magic.
sq225917,
Firstly, clarification of my use of the English language. I stated 'unable', as in unable to hear any difference, as opposed to what seems to be your suggestion that I am inferring 'incapable'. Not intending to suggest you are incompetent as it appears you may have interpreted.
I don't really care what 'most' electronics engineers and science text books think. By definition of being in a book it is 'old' theory and may have been or be disproven. eg string theory v relativity raises some really interesting questions. If I cared what most of my fellow engineers think I would not have done quite a lot of the R&D and experimentation that I have. Nor would Astronomy now be studying the orbit of the planets around the sun but rather it would stil be studying the orbit of the planets around the Earth. We would also not know about Quarks, Neutrinos et al since we were unable to see or measure them so they could not have existed. More than likely we would still lock people in closed rooms when they got sick, not wash our hands etc since we would not have been open minded enough to move onto the concept of germs. I find it sadly amusing that engineers/science types are arrogant enough to think that they know all that there is to know about signal propagation/audio reproduction/materials science etc. If this were the case then we would already have developed the ultimate amplifier/tt/dac/transport/preamp/every cable known to manking because we would already KNOW ALL of the parameters that affect the sound and precisely how they affect the sound and the optimised relationship between all of these parameters. That, I can state with certainty, is not the case. So maybe there is stuff that we don't yet know about.
If it cannot be measured then it does not exist!!. What about the fact that we may not be measuring the right things??
But call me stupid if you will: You state "All of them would look at impedance and RLC when trying to characterise the best termination of a power line in a circuit"
which clearly suggests to me that if the RLC parameters are not carefully matched to the specific item in question (be it amp, dac, pre, transport blah blah) then one could potententially expect mismatches, particularly ringing. This is an alternative way of saying that power cables could, and most probably would, be expected to make a diference as all of these parameters will change from one cable to another.
but in earier posts you state that power cables in general, and a DC cable in particular, can not make any difference unless the connector is faulty or the PS design is faulty. Puzzled!
So lets look at the function of a power supply for a digital device in really simplistic terms:
1. Provide a steady DC voltage
2. Provide as low a source impedance as possible. Now this one is interesting since we all know that digital devices generate lots of noise on the power supply lines. So lets say we have high freq noise ie at the clock freq, say 10-20MHz. If the cable is 14 awg of a circular cross-section the surface area compared with, say, a flat ribbon 25mm wide is a truckload less. Given that the skin depth at 20MHz is circa 15 micro-metres the total effective conductive area of the ribbon cf the circular cross-section is 750 sq micro metres vs 76 sq micro metres. This the net effective resistance (at noise frequency) is 10 times less for the ribbon.
End result, the ribbon in this example provides a vastly lower source resistance than the round conductor. And this has not even ventured close to the effects of different dielectric materials which will interact since we are not looking at just a plain old DC voltage.
So I am very puzzled as to why "none of the guys I know would expect there to be any difference simply by substituting one short length of wire for another in this application" since we are clearly not looking at a purely DC situation and to be doing what they are they are clearly pretty intelligent guys.
So to continue; I had two visitors today, one of whom is a rep with a company that produces and distributes power protection/filtration/regulation equipment for the audio world. I demonstrated to him the difference when changing the power cable to my transport from a particular standard off-the-shelf solid core copper built as an ANE power cable to a cable using the same wire off the same roll but stripped back to the bare copper and a different dielectric utilised. A difference was noted.
Then changed to a high quality 'audiophile' syle stranded cable (shielded but shield not earthed) with significantly heavier cross-section and a much more pronounced change was heard. The stranded cable had a less detailed and somewhat smeared/grungy presentation in comparison. Soundstage also dropped noticeably. I was fortunate that a colleague dropped by to pick up some gear and I did the same demo for him and similar comments/observations to the first listener were made.
The next comparison to be done was to change the cable from a variac-based voltage regulation device (Thor PS10) to its associated surge protection board (A12). Two of the A12 boards were compared. The standard unit with run-of-the-mill cable conncting it to the PS10 and another unit with customised cable. Both cables terninated on a 10A IEC line Plug and solder termination into the Thor A12.
Difference is VERY noticeable. The Rep looked at me as if I had grown a second head and he was utterly astounded. The unit in its standard guise was a significant improvement from connecting directly to the wall point (32A cct) but with the changed cable between the PS10 and the A12 surge board the difference was much more pronounced.
All that was effectively done was to change one piece of copper for another (oh, and one dielectric for another).
I am somewhat intrigued by your following comment:
We don't know everything there is know about our systems, but we do know everything about certain basic elements within them.
and I must be upfront completely and advise that I disagree with the essence of what you are saying. I do not believe that it is possibke for us to be certain that we already everything about anything no matter how basic it may seem. I am thus very interested in what you feel are the basic elements that we do know everything about. I would be most appreciative if you would list the elements that you feel fit into this category. It may be quite significant/relevant to understanding some peoples different viewpoints.
The comment needs to be taken in the context of this discussion around dc cables.
On your wider point around the basics that form our systems, those can be found in any good electronics handbook. I think you might be falling into the trap of believing that electronics, right from first principles, as applied in audio is somehow different to that applied in the wider field. It isn't - the same basic rules apply and audio doesn't require special science.
So rather than simply list them (we could start with Ohms Law which covers most bases), obtain a copy of Doug Self's books on small signal electronics and also power amplifiers which covers the point in great detail.
Back to DC cables and the suggestion that we don't know everything.
Again this needs context, and that context is:
- The job to be done
- The perception limitations of listeners.
- Peer review and methods of verification.
The job to be done
The transfer of voltage and current from point A (the start of the cable) to point B (the end).
If we know the conditions at point A, we can compare the conditions at point B when said cable is driving the load. We can asses any voltage change, we can assess and noise on the line and we can asses any changes to current flowing in the cable, relative to alternatives or a reference.
The job is a simple one and we can fully describe the transfer function of the cable using current science.
Perception limitations
Where we to substitute a cable that significantly altered the DC conditions at the load, for example by using extremely long/thin cable and increasing resistance then we have to observe any change to the function of the device being driven. We can measure it and we can listen to it.
If we are going to purely listen to it, then assuming we have observed some basic house keeping to eliminate bias, we have to be aware of human limitation with regard to the perception of small changes to level, frequency response, distortion, phase, and dynamics. Before anyone mentions other factors such as 'musicality, flow or pace' - those are simply subjective reactions to the elements already mentioned.
Much research has been performed on human aural perception and it overwhelmingly demonstrates that, bluntly, we aren't that perceptive. You can make what appear to be quite significant changes to a system and these will pass unnoticed by listeners. How is that relevant?
Well, the very real things we cannot perceive due to our inbuilt limitations are considerably greater in magnitude than those produced by swapping DC cables.
The BBC Research department did extensive testing on perception limitations. mainly as part of their loudspeaker research program and this is well worth reading, certainly as a starting point.
Lastly we come to peer review and verification.
Anecdotal evidence of individual findings is all well and good, but for wider acceptance these finding need to challenged and verified.
We can do this with the blind test, involving several sessions and as large a listener group as possible.
However, with simple concepts such as the properties of short DC cables, we can use the null test.
We simply drive, for example, out DAC via two different cables in turn. We phase invert one and combine the outputs. Any difference will prevent a null result. No different will produce a perfect null.
I hope this goes some way to addressing your points.
Regards,
Rob.
PS: Just to comment on your reply to Simon (sq225917) re clock related noise on the lines and the impact of impedance; yes I agree entirely. But you rather prove the necessity for objective, scientific evaluation in making that point. How much noise is on the line, what is the impact on other parts of the circuit and, very importantly, does this noise materially change the output of the player?
Finding more HF noise on the lines won't necessarily translate to worse performance. Magnitude, the overall circuit design, and listener ability to perceive are the dominant factors.
I assume it possible to have 2 cables, and other pieces of kit for that matter, that measure identically to each other and so produce a perfect null as you describe? Presumably you have such things at your disposal right now?
I'd love to be involved in some blind listening tests of those in my own system. I'd be genuinely interested. I have a completely open mind about these things.
Also I'd love to blind test some mains cables, regardless of how they measure. I'm not especially interested in mains cables, but at the Bake off Show last Hallowe'en, Hugo and I, and others present were 'convinced' that we could hear differences between unfiltered mains cables. We made no attempt to blind test them - it wasn't that sort of a day . >:P I would love to check those results under more...controlled conditions. Again, I am genuinely open minded about this. I have no anti-blind test axe to grind at all. Quite the contrary in fact, I am passionate about scientific method - indeed I'm doing a series of lessons with the pupils at my centre this week to stress its importance (we won't be using DC cables ).
If blind testing presented different results I would love to ponder the reasons... :-?
I've always though group dynamics play a big part in collective listening sessions.
On point 1: I don't know enough about the science of electronics or psycho-acoustics to know if they knows everything. So I genuinely can't share Rob and Si's ulltimate confidence in scientific measurements, but obviously, neither can I argue against it from my position of ignorance.
What are your thoughts about other 'passive' (is that the right word?) components in a system (ICs, speaker cables, supports, whatever).
What's the subjectivist case though? Is it simply to do with the limitations of scientific measurement, or is there something to be said about the holistic nature of the day-to-day listening experience as opposed to the singular sterility of the blind test?
I assume it possible to have 2 cables, and other pieces of kit for that matter, that measure identically to each other and so produce a perfect null as you describe? Presumably you have such things at your disposal right now?
Ben
Hi Ben,
Done plenty of cable blind sessions but never a null on cables.
I've done it with CD lathing.
On our forum archive there is a thread showing the output of a Meridian CD player playing a lathed and non lathed CD. The outputs gave a perfect null which shows that both discs generated identical output.
Whenever I do these things online I usually also provide a wav file so that the result can be downloaded and played. This means that not only can you see the flat line on screen but you can also listen to silence that results
No reason why we cannot do this for cables.
FWIW my position on ordinary (not DC) interconnects and speaker cables is that they can certainly sound different, though most often they don't because the circuit in which they operate doesn't cause a change, ie it is all about interface.
You can for example make a valve amplifier sound brighter by using a speaker cable with high capacitance. The output transformers have appreciable inductance which rolls down the top end, the cable capacitance brings it up again. Same with DNM solid core. Long lengths will put a few ohms in series with the loudspeaker, and your loudspeaker response is modified as a result where the impedance is most reactive. Typically, this occurs around bass resonance (around 40-80Hz) and at the crossover point (around 1-3kHz).
Now some listeners will prefer that - and that is where it gets subjective and rightly so!
Rawl, Oh I apologise, I thought when you said wire that you meant wire. A single strand of round drawn metal. I didn't assume you were also including metal foils drawn to a 25mm x .1mm cross section as well. If only I'd assumed that you were including specimens that were so fragile and impractical that they were nearly impossible to handle never mind attempt to solder- how stupid of me.
Yes you are correct, your 'handle with care' ribbon sample is no good for connecting up a 10mhz clock to a power supply, but fortunately you needn't worry about it because ti would have snapped, or disintegrated long before you managed to turn the power on.
Well done for finding the example that extended beyond the limits of common sense exclusion- i think by very description your example falls under the 'faulty' caveat in my earlier post.
The forum adopts a fairly laissez-faire approach to the content of posts fellas, but there's a bit more fussiness whe it comes to tone. Please keep things as civil as possible. Everyone here is bright enough to chose words well, whatever point they are making.
I am trying to steer clear of getting too involved in these types of discussions but if I may I would just like to put forward my take on the matter. While I am prepared to accept some of the more reasonable arguments, I find it hard to believe that in an age where we are able to make instruments so sensitive, so revealing and focused that we can see into the furthest reaches of the universe, or look into materials and actually see the individual atoms laid bare before us, that we are unable to examine a cable either electrically or subjectively using some sort of measure and not be able to discern differences that some seem to think are so black and white, so night and day that they are willing to spend vast amounts of money on them. How many here consider the human ear to be vastly more capable that for example the best microphones available? Who can say that human hearing is able to trump the best we have to offer in terms of listening and recording equipment. I have yet to see a single, properly carried out blind test that has proved beyond any doubt that a panel of humans are able to repeatedly discern differences between any number of mains cables or speaker cables. Whenever these tests have been done, the results are instantly disputed by the subjective community sighting all manner of problems even claiming the panel were subject to 'stress' and all sorts of other problems.
I have no issue with those who choose to believe they can hear differences, only the way that some of them accuse me of being blinkered, blind, closed minded or even say that my hifi cannot resolve enough or my hearing is not up to scratch. On balance which is the more realistic option - that despite the level of sophistication we are at in terms of measurement and methodology we cannot measure these 'clearly audible' differences? Or simply that these differences do not exist in the first place?
This is the stumbling block that cable manufacturers must bypass, and often they do it by claiming all manner of properties for their products, often using obscure scientific talk that when examined does not hold water, or just fantastical pseudo scientific techno-talk.
So you can see where my beliefs lie, however I am not going to try and stop anyone from having their own beliefs as long as they can understand that they are nothing more than that.
I'm sorry, but I'm not an out-and-out subjectivist, so I'm not your man.
I think I'd prefer to be known as a non-prescriptivist (although I don't think there is much in the way of moral content here in hi-fi), in that I don't lay any rules down that limit the possibilities of what we may experience and discover.
Maybe RD's idea that when instruments/measurements can't tell you the difference, then you should trust your ears (I can't be bothered to find the proper quote) is as good a place as anywhere to start. However, I can understand the strategies objectivists can use against this statement.
His comment is a fair one IMO, so long as the listening test is unsighted.
On the other hand I can't think of a single instance where I've heard a change and there hasn't been a reasonable science based answer.
So I think that is fine as a starting point.
For example, there must be many designers out there who in the course of their development have made changes to the sound of equipment but not understood why.
Cries of 'how the hell did that happen!' will have resonated around many a development facility I'm sure.
What comes next is important as it must surely be sensible to find the answer to the surprise finding.
That must be essential if we are to progress, both in understanding and, in the case of a manufacturer, being ably to apply that understanding consistently across products.
For my part, the day I hear something that cannot be satisfactorily explained, I'll have to modify my position.
Rob and Si' have crystalised my understanding of the hifi 'objectivist'.
I still want someone to frame the subjectivist point of view.
I want to better understand the nuts and bolts of the debate.
I understand the dangers of pigeonholing into 'ists' and 'isms', but there seems to be tendencies towards certain position.
As an elder statesman of hifi history :-@ ;Can you enlighten me on the subjectivist POV?
Ben
Ben, in the absence of a response, I'll dig out a link to a fascinating discussion arranged by Stereophile between editor John Atkinson and Arny Krueger, developer of the ABX test method.
Its an audio recording and i'll upload the file later so that foilk can download and listen.
Thanks fellas. Illuminating and pleasantly composed posts.
And Rob, I look forward to the Stereophile piece.
So..., a subjectivist would believe in/expect/relish the possibility that kit that measures identically could actually sound different. That bit I've got.
But what's the subjectivist take on blind testing? I wonder if that's a similarity, or another difference?
In terms of determining sonic differences or 'sound quality' I can't imagine a subjectivist argument against there being at least a role for blind testing...? After all it elevates subjective perception of sonic performance above all else.
Might a subjectivist say that there is more from an "holistically subjective" point of view to buying/owning/enjoying/taking pride in one's hifi posessions than purely sound quality... e.g. enjoying a particular company's ethos or image, admiring build quality, identifying with a particular group/sect of the hifi community who own a particular brand/item, etc.,... Perhaps to some degree these factors play some, subconscious part in the purchase choices and the forum behaviour of all but the most resolute of objectivists? Obviously the point of blind testing is to obscure these non-sonic factors, but in so doing does it create an artificially controlled arena that the denies other factors - that will be present in one's lounge on a Friday evening - to influence choice?
Personally I wouldn't make this case, but might a subjectivist, or am I still getting it all wrong?
hi and thanks Rob, i had a listen and found it somewhat confusing and rather difficult to listen to mr krueger, i wonder if his sense of hearing may actually be damaged as he talks very loudly. i also feel its getting very far from the original discussion of this thread but in some ways is most relevant, will keep this short, had i been there i would have asked mr krueger if his testing and abx web site is aimed at gaining more pleasure from a system designed to enjoy music reproduction ?, all his suggestion seemed to be aimed at 'can we', or 'is it actually', rather than 'do you enjoy more', that test can only be conducted when we have a certain product in our own living circumstance and system , on this occasion i would say that mr Atkinson's approach is (for me) the correct one , just one uneducated music lovers point of view though, best regards all, matt
I think there are two reasons why people make a big thing about ABX (or indeed just careful AB).
There are undoubtedly some zealots who want to 'prove' that everything sounds the same. I think that is perhaps why in the debate, Atkinson claims that nearly all ABX gives a null result. If you focus on a small group of testers you can easily come to that view.
However, there is a whole community out there using the testing to show very positive effects.
Take a look at the many AB and ABX tests on for example Hydrogen Audio. That site is digital audio focused and much of the listening is around codecs and compression. Differences often emerge during those ABX tests and the results are potentially extremely useful. The identification of non audible high compression ratio codecs is extremely useful where you need to combine highest quality with minimum storage space.
Just one example of ABX working well.
Atkinson's view, which is essentially that auditioning needs to be performed in a domestic environment is a straw man argument IMO. Blind tests can be done in this way - that's certainly how I do mine.
The argument in favour of sighted listening over protracted periods is fraught with danger because there are so many opportunities for bias to creep in. I'll give an example close to home.
I have two Quad amplifiers here, the 405 (though Mk2) mentioned in his anecdote and the similar though smaller 306. On blind test I cannot tell these two amps apart. Logically therefore, I ought to use the 405 because it has more headroom and no drawbacks compared to the smaller 306. Yet I chose to use the 306 because I believe it to sound better in normal use.
To find the reasons why you have to look at the extensive history of the 405, which almost since inception has been lambasted in the press - over 30 years in fact. The ideas of the designers Walker and Albinson ditto. The amplifier has been routinely described as sounding rather flat, dull and tonally grey.
That is exactly what I sometimes hear from this amplifier in all but a blind listening session.
In other words, the seed that this amplifier is poor has been planted, watered and nourished over many years.
My point (at last you say) is that it remains incredibly difficult to properly hear differences in situations devoid of bias, especially if that bias is formed through many years of influence.
I make no claims that AB or ABX blind testing is perfect, simply that it is more reliable than the alternatives.
There is a further point which is more specifically aimed at the audio press and Stereophile, though making that point without opening a can of worms or treading on toes is difficult
I will just say this.
Audio journalists would have extremely short careers were they to adopt a position that all competently designed electronics sound essentially the same. Is that yet another form of purely unintentional bias?
I have to reviews this amplifier and describe how it sounds, fill three pages, relate the performance to the competition, and sell a magazine. Simply writing, 'this amp sounds just like the one I tested last month' won't go down very well. It would in 1970, where the focus was on technical performance and features, but not today.
Others can think on that and decide but it makes an interesting thought alongside John Akinson's 405 discovery.
I think there are two reasons why people make a big thing about ABX (or indeed just careful AB).
There are undoubtedly some zealots who want to 'prove' that everything sounds the same. I think that is perhaps where why in the debate, Atkinson claims that nearly all ABX gives a null result.
However, there is a whole community out there using the testing to show very positive effects.
Take a look at the many AB and ABX on for example Hydrogen Audio. That site is digital audio focused and much of the listening is around codecs and compression. Differences often emerge during those ABX tests and the results are potentially extremely useful. The identification of non audible high compression ratio codecs is extremely useful where you need to combine highest quality with minimum storage space.
Just one example of ABX working well.
thanks Rob,
i will take a good look at the hydrogen site, i must admit i am not all that in touch with digital and do have a rather unfair bias against it which was as a result of almost all my friends going over to cd back in the day , i couldn't listen to it as a media for more than 10 minutes before it became unbearable, now though i feel i must go digital as more than an afterthought because i am struggling to find a lot of music on vinyl ,
i have no issue with using the abx method,as you said it has yielded useful results,especially when used with recording methods and use of such things as compression,
i just think that with home audio systems and much they can vary it only gives a result of 'that' test and has little place in how a person decides how to assemble a system that they will interact with daily for what may be decades,
as was said at the end of the debate, the issue will probably go on for years to come,
all the best and thanks again for posting the info, matt
hi guys, what a fine thread of conversation, the whole measurement vs end product thing is certainly most intriguing , i take my stand point on ""have a listen in your system and to hell with the measurement"" ,because i often see conflict between what i perceive to be good sounding and how that thing measures, considering i will use the product as part of a system to listen to music do i trust the bad measurements or the sonic ability of a product, with cable though i dont think that the current measurements that keep being quoted by some as 'all that matters' even come close to giving hard evidence as to whats going on with it as a part of the system so i am left to judge for myself by listening , if a cable was to show no difference from another in one of my systems i would still be in no position to say that cable will make no difference in another until i try it, as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone? this is to the heart of my issues with hi fi users needing to know why something sounds a certain way and trying to asses it via its measurements , why bother when the folks that made it cant do it, i so wish i could just look at a set of figures and know exactly how it will interact with my system but i cant, this alone is thee golden rule with this nerdy little hobby that gives very cool and wonderful music, listen first then if it sounds bad consider the measurements to see if there is an obvious mismatch electrically with the rest of the system and look toward listening to the better matched equipment but,you must still listen to the' electrically' better matched components and assess again, we need the testers and measures but they too must keep an open mind and be willing to relearn a few things, those that do tend to discover stuff that bring improvements for us all to enjoy. all the very best guys, matt
Matt,
I find myself nodding very much in agreement with what you have written here. There seems to be an inherent assumption that current science (no pun intended) knows every factor that affects the reproduction of audio. Given that we do not have the remotest inkling of a full understanding of how the Human Mind/Brain works, we do not fully understand telepathy, we cannot build craft that can travel faster than the speed of light yet and we also have some rather conflicting theories re propagation of energy via particle/wave phonomena (why when a photon is 'watched' does it act as a particle yet when unobserved it acts as a wave?), string vs quantum vs relativity etc, how can we proclaim that with current physics/science/engineering we can quantify and define all of the factors that affect audio reproduction, particularly in regard propagation of EM waves down a lump of copper/silver/whatever (otherwise known as a cable).
I think you and I have a very similar take on all of this. Thanks a bunch for your thoughts.
hi guys, what a fine thread of conversation, the whole measurement vs end product thing is certainly most intriguing , i take my stand point on ""have a listen in your system and to hell with the measurement"" ,because i often see conflict between what i perceive to be good sounding and how that thing measures, considering i will use the product as part of a system to listen to music do i trust the bad measurements or the sonic ability of a product, with cable though i dont think that the current measurements that keep being quoted by some as 'all that matters' even come close to giving hard evidence as to whats going on with it as a part of the system so i am left to judge for myself by listening , if a cable was to show no difference from another in one of my systems i would still be in no position to say that cable will make no difference in another until i try it, as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone? this is to the heart of my issues with hi fi users needing to know why something sounds a certain way and trying to asses it via its measurements , why bother when the folks that made it cant do it, i so wish i could just look at a set of figures and know exactly how it will interact with my system but i cant, this alone is thee golden rule with this nerdy little hobby that gives very cool and wonderful music, listen first then if it sounds bad consider the measurements to see if there is an obvious mismatch electrically with the rest of the system and look toward listening to the better matched equipment but,you must still listen to the' electrically' better matched components and assess again, we need the testers and measures but they too must keep an open mind and be willing to relearn a few things, those that do tend to discover stuff that bring improvements for us all to enjoy. all the very best guys, matt
Matt,
I find myself nodding very much in agreement with what you have written here. There seems to be an inherent assumption that current science (no pun intended) knows every factor that affects the reproduction of audio. Given that we do not have the remotest inkling of a full understanding of how the Human Mind/Brain works, we do not fully understand telepathy, we cannot build craft that can travel faster than the speed of light yet and we also have some rather conflicting theories re propagation of energy via particle/wave phonomena (why when a photon is 'watched' does it act as a particle yet when unobserved it acts as a wave?), string vs quantum vs relativity etc, how can we proclaim that with current physics/science/engineering we can quantify and define all of the factors that affect audio reproduction, particularly in regard propagation of EM waves down a lump of copper/silver/whatever (otherwise known as a cable).
I think you and I have a very similar take on all of this. Thanks a bunch for your thoughts.
Rawl
I'm also broadly in agreement. My view is that we clearly don't know everything, so we have to be very careful about attaching any ideas of 'truth' to what we've discovered so far.
Rawl, I'm reasonably well aware of wave duality theory, thanks for asking. One could suppose that the apparatus used for observing the particle somehow affects the energy state of the particle, in fact you could make up anything you damn well pleased to support the theory because it's unlikely we'll ever know (I mean really know) either way.
So, as I said, probably for the same reason birds fly differently in a flock- we'll never know the answer for that either. We can propose models and then check to see if what happens matches these predictions, but that's not the same as proof that we are correct.
hi guys, you all know my stand point by now, but i believe the hi fi cable industry should be well aware of the debate that's going on with regards to cables and the possibilities of improving sales by simply supplying proof or evidence of the sonic effects they can (for some of us) provide, i do though still wonder if it would be in their interest to attempt to provide lab borne evidence of the effects, by this i mean what if they make absolutely no difference and the differences we hear are all based on psycho-acoustics , it would kill the hi fi cable business over night , but if that were truly the case and i went back to the cheapest of cable (which i have done several times after it was suggested that they make no difference) i enjoy my music collection less, little details suddenly disappear ,the sound stage loses all its height and width , individual instruments are harder to separate and listening just becomes a chore, since the whole cable debacle is still in its infancy i reckon we are in for some interesting discoveries , consider the advances in vinyl reproduction, a format that was all but dead a few years ago , even after over half a century advances are being sought and found and even stumbled upon, consider also how digital has moved on too cable is still an infant in the grand scheme of audio things and we may just see the biggest advances in improved home reproduction will come from cables and researching how they interact, a recent experience with a certain speaker cable has left me wondering what all the other cables i have used could be doing so wrong that makes them sound rather poor by comparison, cables are passive devices after all but, are they really passive when they are being demanded upon by the devices they are connected to , when they are in circuit they are constantly interacting and so must be researched more and in real depth , after all we all use them and need them , when i connected a certain cable between two components (the amp is 20 years old ! ) and got a real shock and had to ask myself just how much better are the connected components and if we could somehow find the truly inaudible cable just what would those connected components sound like, of course its up to you guys to decide if you want to take a side in the discussion (just try not to let another mans opinion and findings get to you its just hi fi), i will just chose to discuss in the hope that all those guys who are experimenting will find out something, and please enjoy the music, all the best fellas,
as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone?
Rawl
Hi Rawl,
Judging with our senses is fine, so long as we accept that those senses are easily influenced by non-sonic events. The senses that matter in audio, hearing and to some degree 'feel' as in feeling vibration through our bodies, still operate under blind conditions.
as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone?
Rawl
Hi Rawl,
Judging with our senses is fine, so long as we accept that those senses are easily influenced by non-sonic events. The senses that matter in audio, hearing and to some degree 'feel' as in feeling vibration through our bodies, still operate under blind conditions.
regards,
hi Rob, i am guessing you were addressing me in this post since you have quoted me, i fully agree , but is it the case that those non-sonic events are still of influence after prolonged listening with several systems , i do ,as i have mentioned believe that the blind tests have their place but ultimately if we do a blind test that yields a null result then go home to our systems expecting the same and we don't get that null result, can that blind test still be trusted to be definitive? best regards, Matt
Comments
And I agree - there are plenty of straw men being set up out there. Which is silly. It's a stereotyping strategy that doesn't get to the nubs of the issues. Which this thread is doing. If I may flatter us so after a few glasses of Chablis...
8-|
Put the Alka Seltzer on the bedside table Ben!
I'm sipping water now...
I cannot for the life of me imagine why any power cable should make any difference at all - in fact it irritates me that proponents of the benefits of such cables let themselves (note almost 'us') down with psuedo-scientific claims, shoddy reasoning and FUD....irritated because even I can reason like that, and I want something better to try to understand.
I feel just as strongly that a *strictly* objective view on the same issues seems to miss something - for example in my system the DC cable I bought sounded better that the factory supplied jobbie. Could I blindly identify the difference? Maybe not.... But am I that shallow? I wanted to return the cable for a refund, I was
only trying it out of curiosity - so my expectation bis surely worked
against cable belief? Does that itself prove a (lack of) difference? The answer is obvious. Jury's out then, AFAIC.
Speaker cables then - can they make a difference? Absolutely, in my experience, though seeking to understand the differences presented by different materials and types of construction by reading the supposed informed objective assessments on the internet (I know, I know...) leads me to conclude there physically cannot be a difference. Except there flaming is - every time!
I accept my amplifier is as temperamental as it's designer when it comes to such cabling matters, and my system is designed to function as one with it's cabling which has to be low capacitance etc (yada yada...) and has no protective circuitary. This might colour my perception on such matters to be sure, as my rig may be reacting to changes of cabling as violently as a cat in a jet wash.
I am also a 'burn in believer' in particular after owning several Beresford DACs which by themselves prove the existence of burn in. But I have also had the oppotunity to hear *more than one* Young DAC from new and and I am damned if I detect more than a hint of change over time. Certainty not enough to guarantee it is outside the realm of imagination. So even that is not consistent!
I principle I am ready to believe such differences in cables, burn in etc are all in the mind, and perhaps have to do with the mind becoming attuned to different presentations from new kit over time. After all, why isn't a pre-burned in cable worth more than a new set of cable?
Then again, I go and listen again and things aren't so clear cut. I rather wish they were. I therefore find both overly subjective posturing and rigidly objective lecturing tedious and unfulfilling, but I have even fewer answers myself.
But there is something of substance going on here I'm sure, even if political and personal issues can dig what are actually interesting points of view into entrenched 'us and them' camps.
And, if there are 2 theoretical extremes, that real people may or may not inhabit but certainly tend towards, might those extremes be characterised as:
1. Objectivist: That 2 products that measure identically in every respect will and must, sound identical in a double blind llistening test.
2. Subjectivist: That 2 products that sound different in a sighted listening test do actually sound different, and therefore must have actual technical differences that simply are not, or cannot, be currently measured (except by our ears and brains).
Or might they not....?
:-S
Blimey my belly button needs a clean out...
:">
Until I acquire the knowledge...
"Sorry I forgot the gimp mask Si, but subjectively speaking, I'd say that's a higher capacitance cable..."
:
1 The significance of scientific measurement.
2 The importance of isolating auditory perception from other influences.
So what are the subjectivist counterpoints? I think I know some of the objections to the 1st point, but what's the objection to the 2nd point?
I understand that this place is seen as a 'subjectivist' forum, but I'm confused about what this might be seen to mean...
:-/
:-)
what a fine thread of conversation,
the whole measurement vs end product thing is certainly most intriguing , i take my stand point on ""have a listen in your system and to hell with the measurement"" ,because i often see conflict between what i perceive to be good sounding and how that thing measures, considering i will use the product as part of a system to listen to music do i trust the bad measurements or the sonic ability of a product,
with cable though i dont think that the current measurements that keep being quoted by some as 'all that matters' even come close to giving hard evidence as to whats going on with it as a part of the system so i am left to judge for myself by listening , if a cable was to show no difference from another in one of my systems i would still be in no position to say that cable will make no difference in another until i try it,
as music listeners we must judge with our senses as we will be using those senses to enjoy the end product , if you make your own hi fi i would expect you to have good grasp of measurement and how it can help but from what i have learned so far fine tuning of hi fi by its makers is done by ear, their knowledge of the working through measurement helps them fine tune it, then they check the fine tuning again by ear but can they sell their product and explain its sonic character by measurements alone?
this is to the heart of my issues with hi fi users needing to know why something sounds a certain way and trying to asses it via its measurements , why bother when the folks that made it cant do it,
i so wish i could just look at a set of figures and know exactly how it will interact with my system but i cant,
this alone is thee golden rule with this nerdy little hobby that gives very cool and wonderful music, listen first then if it sounds bad consider the measurements to see if there is an obvious mismatch electrically with the rest of the system and look toward listening to the better matched equipment but,you must still listen to the' electrically' better matched components and assess again,
we need the testers and measures but they too must keep an open mind and be willing to relearn a few things, those that do tend to discover stuff that bring improvements for us all to enjoy.
all the very best guys,
matt
sq225917,
Firstly, clarification of my use of the English language. I stated 'unable', as in unable to hear any difference, as opposed to what seems to be your suggestion that I am inferring 'incapable'. Not intending to suggest you are incompetent as it appears you may have interpreted.
I don't really care what 'most' electronics engineers and science text books think. By definition of being in a book it is 'old' theory and may have been or be disproven. eg string theory v relativity raises some really interesting questions. If I cared what most of my fellow engineers think I would not have done quite a lot of the R&D and experimentation that I have. Nor would Astronomy now be studying the orbit of the planets around the sun but rather it would stil be studying the orbit of the planets around the Earth. We would also not know about Quarks, Neutrinos et al since we were unable to see or measure them so they could not have existed. More than likely we would still lock people in closed rooms when they got sick, not wash our hands etc since we would not have been open minded enough to move onto the concept of germs. I find it sadly amusing that engineers/science types are arrogant enough to think that they know all that there is to know about signal propagation/audio reproduction/materials science etc. If this were the case then we would already have developed the ultimate amplifier/tt/dac/transport/preamp/every cable known to manking because we would already KNOW ALL of the parameters that affect the sound and precisely how they affect the sound and the optimised relationship between all of these parameters. That, I can state with certainty, is not the case. So maybe there is stuff that we don't yet know about.
If it cannot be measured then it does not exist!!. What about the fact that we may not be measuring the right things??
But call me stupid if you will: You state "All of them would look at impedance and RLC when trying to characterise the best termination of a power line in a circuit"
which clearly suggests to me that if the RLC parameters are not carefully matched to the specific item in question (be it amp, dac, pre, transport blah blah) then one could potententially expect mismatches, particularly ringing. This is an alternative way of saying that power cables could, and most probably would, be expected to make a diference as all of these parameters will change from one cable to another.
but in earier posts you state that power cables in general, and a DC cable in particular, can not make any difference unless the connector is faulty or the PS design is faulty. Puzzled!
So lets look at the function of a power supply for a digital device in really simplistic terms:
1. Provide a steady DC voltage
2. Provide as low a source impedance as possible. Now this one is interesting since we all know that digital devices generate lots of noise on the power supply lines. So lets say we have high freq noise ie at the clock freq, say 10-20MHz. If the cable is 14 awg of a circular cross-section the surface area compared with, say, a flat ribbon 25mm wide is a truckload less. Given that the skin depth at 20MHz is circa 15 micro-metres the total effective conductive area of the ribbon cf the circular cross-section is 750 sq micro metres vs 76 sq micro metres. This the net effective resistance (at noise frequency) is 10 times less for the ribbon.
End result, the ribbon in this example provides a vastly lower source resistance than the round conductor. And this has not even ventured close to the effects of different dielectric materials which will interact since we are not looking at just a plain old DC voltage.
So I am very puzzled as to why "none of the guys I know would expect there to be any difference simply by substituting one short length of wire for another in this application" since we are clearly not looking at a purely DC situation and to be doing what they are they are clearly pretty intelligent guys.
So to continue; I had two visitors today, one of whom is a rep with a company that produces and distributes power protection/filtration/regulation equipment for the audio world. I demonstrated to him the difference when changing the power cable to my transport from a particular standard off-the-shelf solid core copper built as an ANE power cable to a cable using the same wire off the same roll but stripped back to the bare copper and a different dielectric utilised. A difference was noted.
Then changed to a high quality 'audiophile' syle stranded cable (shielded but shield not earthed) with significantly heavier cross-section and a much more pronounced change was heard. The stranded cable had a less detailed and somewhat smeared/grungy presentation in comparison. Soundstage also dropped noticeably. I was fortunate that a colleague dropped by to pick up some gear and I did the same demo for him and similar comments/observations to the first listener were made.
The next comparison to be done was to change the cable from a variac-based voltage regulation device (Thor PS10) to its associated surge protection board (A12). Two of the A12 boards were compared. The standard unit with run-of-the-mill cable conncting it to the PS10 and another unit with customised cable. Both cables terninated on a 10A IEC line Plug and solder termination into the Thor A12.
Difference is VERY noticeable. The Rep looked at me as if I had grown a second head and he was utterly astounded. The unit in its standard guise was a significant improvement from connecting directly to the wall point (32A cct) but with the changed cable between the PS10 and the A12 surge board the difference was much more pronounced.
All that was effectively done was to change one piece of copper for another (oh, and one dielectric for another).
Cheers
Rawl
Rob,
I am somewhat intrigued by your following comment:
We don't know everything there is know about our systems, but we do know everything about certain basic elements within them.
and I must be upfront completely and advise that I disagree with the essence of what you are saying. I do not believe that it is possibke for us to be certain that we already everything about anything no matter how basic it may seem. I am thus very interested in what you feel are the basic elements that we do know everything about. I would be most appreciative if you would list the elements that you feel fit into this category. It may be quite significant/relevant to understanding some peoples different viewpoints.
Regards
Rawl
=D>
Rob,
I assume it possible to have 2 cables, and other pieces of kit for that matter, that measure identically to each other and so produce a perfect null as you describe? Presumably you have such things at your disposal right now?
I'd love to be involved in some blind listening tests of those in my own system. I'd be genuinely interested. I have a completely open mind about these things.
Also I'd love to blind test some mains cables, regardless of how they measure. I'm not especially interested in mains cables, but at the Bake off Show last Hallowe'en, Hugo and I, and others present were 'convinced' that we could hear differences between unfiltered mains cables. We made no attempt to blind test them - it wasn't that sort of a day . >:P I would love to check those
results under more...controlled conditions. Again, I am genuinely open minded about this. I have no anti-blind test axe to grind at all. Quite the contrary in fact, I am passionate about scientific method - indeed I'm doing a series of lessons with the pupils at my centre this week to stress its importance (we won't be using DC cables
If blind testing presented different results I would love to ponder the reasons...
:-?
I've always though group dynamics play a big part in collective listening sessions.
On point 1: I don't know enough about the science of electronics or psycho-acoustics to know if they knows everything. So I genuinely can't share Rob and Si's ulltimate confidence in scientific measurements, but obviously, neither can I argue against it from my position of ignorance.
What are your thoughts about other 'passive' (is that the right word?) components in a system (ICs, speaker cables,
supports, whatever).
Ben
Is it simply to do with the limitations of scientific measurement, or is there something to be said about the holistic nature of the day-to-day listening experience as opposed to the singular sterility of the blind test?
Please keep things as civil as possible. Everyone here is bright enough to chose words well, whatever point they are making.
I have no issue with those who choose to believe they can hear differences, only the way that some of them accuse me of being blinkered, blind, closed minded or even say that my hifi cannot resolve enough or my hearing is not up to scratch. On balance which is the more realistic option - that despite the level of sophistication we are at in terms of measurement and methodology we cannot measure these 'clearly audible' differences? Or simply that these differences do not exist in the first place?
This is the stumbling block that cable manufacturers must bypass, and often they do it by claiming all manner of properties for their products, often using obscure scientific talk that when examined does not hold water, or just fantastical pseudo scientific techno-talk.
So you can see where my beliefs lie, however I am not going to try and stop anyone from having their own beliefs as long as they can understand that they are nothing more than that.
Dave,
Rob and Si' have crystalised my understanding of the hifi 'objectivist'.
I still want someone to frame the subjectivist point of view.
I want to better understand the nuts and bolts of the debate.
I understand the dangers of pigeonholing into 'ists' and 'isms', but there seems to be tendencies towards certain position.
As an elder statesman of hifi history :-@ ;Can you enlighten me on the subjectivist POV?
Ben
Thanks fellas. Illuminating and pleasantly composed posts.
And Rob, I look forward to the Stereophile piece.
So..., a subjectivist would believe in/expect/relish the possibility that kit that measures identically could actually sound different. That bit I've got.
But what's the subjectivist take on blind testing? I wonder if that's a similarity, or another difference?
In terms of determining sonic differences or 'sound quality' I can't imagine a subjectivist argument against there being at least a role for blind testing...? After all it elevates subjective perception of sonic performance above all else.
Might a subjectivist say that there is more from an "holistically subjective" point of view to buying/owning/enjoying/taking pride in one's hifi posessions than purely sound quality... e.g. enjoying a particular company's ethos or image, admiring build quality, identifying with a particular group/sect of the hifi community who own a particular brand/item, etc.,... Perhaps to some degree these factors play some, subconscious part in the purchase choices and the forum behaviour of all but the most resolute of objectivists? Obviously the point of blind testing is to obscure these non-sonic factors, but in so doing does it create an artificially controlled arena that the denies other factors - that will be present in one's lounge on a Friday evening - to influence choice?
Personally I wouldn't make this case, but might a subjectivist, or am I still getting it all wrong?
i had a listen and found it somewhat confusing and rather difficult to listen to mr krueger, i wonder if his sense of hearing may actually be damaged as he talks very loudly.
i also feel its getting very far from the original discussion of this thread but in some ways is most relevant,
will keep this short,
had i been there i would have asked mr krueger if his testing and abx web site is aimed at gaining more pleasure from a system designed to enjoy music reproduction ?, all his suggestion seemed to be aimed at 'can we', or 'is it actually', rather than 'do you enjoy more',
that test can only be conducted when we have a certain product in our own living circumstance and system , on this occasion i would say that mr Atkinson's approach is (for me) the correct one ,
just one uneducated music lovers point of view though,
best regards all,
matt
thanks Rob,
i will take a good look at the hydrogen site, i must admit i am not all that in touch with digital and do have a rather unfair bias against it which was as a result of almost all my friends going over to cd back in the day , i couldn't listen to it as a media for more than 10 minutes before it became unbearable, now though i feel i must go digital as more than an afterthought because i am struggling to find a lot of music on vinyl ,
i have no issue with using the abx method,as you said it has yielded useful results,especially when used with recording methods and use of such things as compression,
i just think that with home audio systems and much they can vary it only gives a result of 'that' test and has little place in how a person decides how to assemble a system that they will interact with daily for what may be decades,
as was said at the end of the debate, the issue will probably go on for years to come,
all the best and thanks again for posting the info,
matt
Matt,
I find myself nodding very much in agreement with what you have written here. There seems to be an inherent assumption that current science (no pun intended) knows every factor that affects the reproduction of audio. Given that we do not have the remotest inkling of a full understanding of how the Human Mind/Brain works, we do not fully understand telepathy, we cannot build craft that can travel faster than the speed of light yet and we also have some rather conflicting theories re propagation of energy via particle/wave phonomena (why when a photon is 'watched' does it act as a particle yet when unobserved it acts as a wave?), string vs quantum vs relativity etc, how can we proclaim that with current physics/science/engineering we can quantify and define all of the factors that affect audio reproduction, particularly in regard propagation of EM waves down a lump of copper/silver/whatever (otherwise known as a cable).
I think you and I have a very similar take on all of this. Thanks a bunch for your thoughts.
Rawl
you all know my stand point by now, but i believe the hi fi cable industry should be well aware of the debate that's going on with regards to cables and the possibilities of improving sales by simply supplying proof or evidence of the sonic effects they can (for some of us) provide,
i do though still wonder if it would be in their interest to attempt to provide lab borne evidence of the effects, by this i mean what if they make absolutely no difference and the differences we hear are all based on psycho-acoustics , it would kill the hi fi cable business over night , but if that were truly the case and i went back to the cheapest of cable (which i have done several times after it was suggested that they make no difference) i enjoy my music collection less, little details suddenly disappear ,the sound stage loses all its height and width , individual instruments are harder to separate and listening just becomes a chore,
since the whole cable debacle is still in its infancy i reckon we are in for some interesting discoveries , consider the advances in vinyl reproduction, a format that was all but dead a few years ago , even after over half a century advances are being sought and found and even stumbled upon, consider also how digital has moved on too
cable is still an infant in the grand scheme of audio things and we may just see the biggest advances in improved home reproduction will come from cables and researching how they interact, a recent experience with a certain speaker cable has left me wondering what all the other cables i have used could be doing so wrong that makes them sound rather poor by comparison,
cables are passive devices after all but, are they really passive when they are being demanded upon by the devices they are connected to , when they are in circuit they are constantly interacting and so must be researched more and in real depth , after all we all use them and need them ,
when i connected a certain cable between two components (the amp is 20 years old ! ) and got a real shock and had to ask myself just how much better are the connected components and if we could somehow find the truly inaudible cable just what would those connected components sound like,
of course its up to you guys to decide if you want to take a side in the discussion (just try not to let another mans opinion and findings get to you its just hi fi), i will just chose to discuss in the hope that all those guys who are experimenting will find out something,
and please enjoy the music,
all the best fellas,
i am guessing you were addressing me in this post since you have quoted me,
i fully agree , but is it the case that those non-sonic events are still of influence after prolonged listening with several systems , i do ,as i have mentioned believe that the blind tests have their place but ultimately if we do a blind test that yields a null result then go home to our systems expecting the same and we don't get that null result, can that blind test still be trusted to be definitive?
best regards,
Matt