New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 9  

post #121 of 211
wow!
This certainly was excellent reading for 3am.
C'mon guys, you can lead a horse to water but.......
The guy obviously has no intentions on spending more than five bucks on a set of cables. His methods may be flawed, but he's done a hell of job convincing himself that he's right. If he doesn't want to step up to the plate, let him live in ignorant bliss.
This was actually good reading; much like a suspense novel: Will he get it? Will he get it? Will he get it?
lol
md
post #122 of 211
Joe, Quit smokin the rugs man!
post #123 of 211
Quote:
Still and all, could you tell which was the original and which was the 4 times re-recorded + remastered wav?
i dont think anyone would be able to (or bother) tell the difference between crap against crap..

can you tell the difference between microwaved vs cooked food?? if it taste like **** already, no.
post #124 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth


1- WRONG! There are substantial, measurable differences between cables.
2- WRONG! By the way, you've just contradicted your statement #1.
3- WRONG again. Gee Ricky, you're batting 1000!
4- Well, apparently, Ricky still doesn't get it.
[QUOTE][B]

1 - Please read and understand what I wrote.
2 - Please read and understand what I wrote.

One clue... the words " measure ... from the audio point of view" and "electrical parameters" are different things. "From the audio point of view" means "for audio signals" ,which means "audio level and frequency signals". Please, learn a little more about electronics before disqualifying statements that you don't understand, nor can refute with arguments other that none.

3 - Prove it
4 - I hope you get it this time.
post #125 of 211
Some notes about my test, for people with some technical knowledge.

Note that I have compensated just some of the soundcard deficiencies, not cable deficiencies. These are frequency response and SNR. Other deficiencies such as soundcard nonlinear distortion cannot be compensated (note that cables don't produce nonlinear distortion at all).

- I could not measure any deficiency in frequency response of cables, since a 2 meter long plastic connectors stock interconnect and a 25 cm. metal connectors low capacitance network cable interconnect, had no measurable differences on frequency response in my setup, as I expected, and as physics clearly predicts for audio frequencies and cable capacitances.

- About SNR compensation, I did a 0.88 B amplification before the loopback process, and the same attenuation value after the whole loopback process, so I got a 2 x 0.88 = 1.76 dB of SNR improvement (edit: see correction at the bottom). Note that I could have had similar results using a higher output level soundcard, OR a for example a cd player that usually has higher output levels. My Denon cd player puts a signal 4.8 dB higher than my Audiophile soundcard (full scale 2.2 Vrms vs 1.27 Vrms). From the interconnect added EMI noise point of view, a cd player like mine would "stand" over this added noise better than my sound card plus digital SNR improvement. It would keep the noise interconnect 4.8-1.76=3.04 dB lower. So, in this cable noise respect, a standard cd player would be better than my soundcard and digital SNR improvement together. I will add this explanation to my web page in the next few days.

I have updated my web page to add some of these data, and to make clear from the beginning which is the procedure used at the process.


Edit: must do a correction. There is only SNR improvement due to the initial amplification step. So, the SNR gain due to initial amplification in my test is of just 0.88 dB. So, my cd player would keep the interconnect noise 4.8-0.88=3.92 dB lower than the whole soundcard loopback + dsp process.
post #126 of 211
Jeez, I've *never* seen someone go through so much trouble to prove what a closed-minded moron they actually are.

Well, at least since Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann ( you may better remember these guys for thier 'work' on the field of 'cold fusion').
post #127 of 211
Now, for people that think like MacDEF about human hearing abilities and science.

Just make as if you had not read my previous post, if you have done so.

Just one simple question:

If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive, how is that I managed in my test, just using some easy measurements and processing, to make a clip that has been passed 4 times through a soundcard and a $4 interconnect, that until now has been impossible to distinguish from the original clip, which has no soundcard or cable effect at all?

I mean, unless you afirm that a good cable in my test would "improve" the sound of this non-processed clip over no cable at all.
post #128 of 211
Why dont you give it a brake? Ant there something else that you know or can talk about?
post #129 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive,
why dont you do something useful, try some DBT on sniffer dogs for example. after all, they claim to be able to sniff drugs inside a suitcase!! HAHA what a joke. i've never been able to smell any scent and my scientific eq has failed to detect any traces either! those dogs are just guessing and suffering psychological effects.
post #130 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive, how is that I managed in my test, just using some easy measurements and processing, to make a clip that has been passed 4 times through a soundcard and a $4 interconnect, that until now has been impossible to distinguish from the original clip, which has no soundcard or cable effect at all?
You didn't make such a clip. You produced a clip that you can't distinguish from subsequent generations. My guess is that most other people had enough sense to see the flaws in your methodology and didn't bother. If you are making the claim that it cannot be distinguished, please report the number of responses you are basing your claim on, a summary of the actual data that support your assertion, and the data analyses that were performed, if any.
post #131 of 211
Sheesh! The solution is so simple. Mr. Ricky should just go to his local audiophile shop, sit down and at no cost to him, audition speaker cables and ICs. If he still hears no difference, then he obviously has bad hearing and his arguments are moot.
md
post #132 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by millerdog
Sheesh! The solution is so simple. Mr. Ricky should just go to his local audiophile shop, sit down and at no cost to him, audition speaker cables and ICs. If he still hears no difference, then he obviously has bad hearing and his arguments are moot.
md
I was a skeptic until I went to the WoH tour and heard the different HD600 cables. At that point I was happy with my Clou Red and had no intention on switching... Then I heard the Cardas and Equinox. At this point the only thing that could have biased my opinion were asthetics and sound. I prefered the sound of the Cardas (by a slim margin) over the Equinox and I though both were well ahead of the Clou. Believe me, I don;t have anything for Smurf Blue so asthetcs were def. not a factor in this (if they were the Clou Blue would have won hands-down). Neither was price as had no idea what anything cost until I decided if I like how it sounded.

I have since sold the Clou Red and have a smurf-blue cardas on it's way. I was so convinced of the improvement that I practically gave away the Clou so I could get the Cardas.

Now I have Outlaws on order to replace my crappy mosters and audio research.

I just don;t understand how someone can argue and tell me I don't hear somthing I clearly do! If they don;t hear it fine, but don't try to convince me I can't.

Maybe I'll start a thread disputing that the color of the sky is, in fact, not blue. It's about as relavent as Ricky trying to tell us we can't hear a difference.

At this point Ricky is so entrenched in his view that even if he ever does come around pride would likely stand in his way of changing is stance here publicly.

Ricky, if you're so hell bent on proving something there are a LOT of problems that need you that are MUCH more critical than this audio cable debate. Go find a cure for AIDs or cancer. Hell, go get some sun and fresh air. Do something more productive than trying to convince everyone that the sky is yellow when we all clearly see that it's blue!
post #133 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Hirsch

You didn't make such a clip. You produced a clip that you can't distinguish from subsequent generations.
Again, about my original clip, I didn't "produce" any clip. I just ripped it from a cd with 100% accuracy, and not touched it at all, except getting just 30 sec. of it. How many times do I have to repeat it until you realize? Is there any other reason for that particular clip not to count for perceiving differences?

Quote:

My guess is that most other people had enough sense to see the flaws in your methodology and didn't bother.
It seems you like others to give some data that supports their claims, but it seems that this doesn't count much for yourself. So, just wild guessing.

Quote:

If you are making the claim that it cannot be distinguished, please report the number of responses you are basing your claim on, a summary of the actual data that support your assertion, and the data analyses that were performed, if any.
I did not make such claim. What I claimed is that until now, it has been impossible to distinguish by anyone, or at least, I've received no responses claiming otherwise. I try not to talk cheap, you know.

According to my web page statistics, about 12 persons have downloaded the 5 files so far. Two persons have reported results, none of them from this forum. One of them reported he could'n hear any differences. The other person, more audiophile type, but also a reasonable and nice guy, reported that at ABX (blind) testing he couldn't detect any differences. However, he tried to rate the five clips just by listening, and his results seemed just like random guessing, he rated wrong most if not all of files, including the best and the worst ones. I will give the exact data when the test is finished.

I know 12 people is not much. You and the others could try the test and help me increase my sample, it would be much appreciated.
post #134 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Again, about my original clip, I didn't "produce" any clip. I just ripped it from a cd with 100% accuracy, and not touched it at all, except getting just 30 sec. of it. How many times do I have to repeat it until you realize?
100% accuracy???

Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?

Next thing you know, Ricky will be claiming that all CD players and burners are exactly the same and produce exactly the same signal...
post #135 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryS


100% accuracy???

Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?

Next thing you know, Ricky will be claiming that all CD players and burners are exactly the same and produce exactly the same signal...
Bits is bits, a wire's a wire, Vern.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked