New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 10  

post #136 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
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.
Why bother? It's the wrong test. You want to do it right? Hook a good external cdp to a good sound card (You'll need a good quality RCA to mini adapter if the sound card uses mini instead of RCA connectors). Now get a set of cables to test. They should vary in price range. Get all of the parameters on your sound card set, and record a segment from an external CD. Change the cables and do it again. Note that you're keeping all parameters constant except the cable connection between the CDP and the computer. Do NO signal processing, except to edit the start/stop point of your segments so that all are identical. Then create pairs out of your segments. Make at least a dozen files in different configurations. Some pairs will be made with different interconnects, while some will have the same interconnects used for both segments. The listener simply has to decide if the two segments in each file were made with the same or different interconnects. Now try a different variant. Again, all you change is the cables. Simply record some segments using pairs of interconnects, and record other segments using randomly drawn interconnects that are from different brands. The listener has to decide whether or not the sound sample came from a pair of interconnects of the same brand, or whether different interconnects were used for the right and left channels. Make at least a dozen of these. Note that in order to make generalizations about expensive cable, you'll need some expensive cables. Audioadvisor.com and usedcables.com have good 30 day return policies, so you don't have to risk anything but shipping charges. Get some decent cables to use along with your cheap ones, and set up your test properly. Then report back.
post #137 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryS


100% accuracy???

Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?
Because you have no idea of how digital works??

Please learn a bit about EAC (www.exactaudiocopy.de) secure mode ripping, C2 errors, re-reads, crc matching, etc.
post #138 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


Because you have no idea of how digital works??

Please learn a bit about EAC (www.exactaudiocopy.de) secure mode ripping, C2 errors, re-reads, crc matching, etc.
EAC is software...so your 2nd comment implies that as long as you have good software the hardware (CDP) is irrelevant.

Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude.
post #139 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Hirsch

Why bother? It's the wrong test. You want to do it right? Hook a good external cdp to a good sound card (You'll need a good quality RCA to mini adapter if the sound card uses mini instead of CA connectors). Now get a set of cables to test. They ...
...
Maybe some day I will try something similar, if somebody is willing to do such a test. If you are, please tell me and I'll set it up for you, but with no expensive cables, since the best and easiest way to check if a cable alters the sound is to check it against no cable. I mean, again, unless you think that a good cable would improve the sound over no cable at all. (Sorry to repeat same things, but it seems that you boys don't notice things at first time).

I can write a simple program for doing ABX testing with a cd burner and cd player. I can provide you for means on analyzing statistically the results (binomial distribution). I can use different clips, ripped from different cds.

Until that, please explain me why my test is the wrong test. You can do any blind or sighted testing over the 5 files, and you have plenty of time to do this, and then report your results.

By the way, please see www.pcabx.com, with lots of sound samples to listen and test, and explanations over the adequate metodology to use. More info about ABX testing at http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx.htm

Or if you want, we can use an ABC/HR metodology. Just what you want.
post #140 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryS


EAC is software...so your 2nd comment implies that as long as you have good software the hardware (CDP) is irrelevant.
As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works.

Quote:

Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude.
Maybe because your first comment implied I was lying, even when you didn't know much about the subject you were talking about.
post #141 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryS
Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude.
Have you not been reading the rest of the thread? I think he proved this point many, many times in the posts above.
post #142 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer
Have you not been reading the rest of the thread? I think he proved this point many, many times in the posts above.
It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me.
post #143 of 211
"Maybe some day I will try something similar, if somebody is willing to do such a test. If you are, please tell me and I'll set it up for you, but with no expensive cables, since the best and easiest way to check if a cable alters the sound is to check it against no cable. I mean, again, unless you think that a good cable would improve the sound over no cable at all. (Sorry to repeat same things, but it seems that you boys don't notice things at first time).

As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works." ricky

Uhhhhhh..... I got a question: Are we talking about digital or analog cables?
Mr. Ricky, are you talking about digital or analog signals?
It's late, perhaps there's something lost in the translation, I ain't the brightest guy in the world but I'm beginning to wonder if you guys are talking about the same thing?
md
post #144 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me.
Becasue I think you're an arrogant idiot.

How arrogant and idotic to tell me there is no difference when I hear it with my own ears. Tell me you don't hear a difference, that's fine, and quite honestly I envy you a bit. But don't come here and tell me what I can and can't hear!

Am I trying to tell you that you *can* hear a difference? No, only you can answer that.

If you feel so strongly about ICs I'd love to hear what you think about power cables.
post #145 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works.

Maybe because your first comment implied I was lying, even when you didn't know much about the subject you were talking about.
It was your choice to interpret my comment as calling you a liar. I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that I was doubting the capability of your equipment to 100% accurately recreate the original. My implication was that you were mistaken.
post #146 of 211
Wow this thread is still bowling along quite nicely isn't it!


Setmenu
post #147 of 211
I'm thoroughly enjoying it...

post #148 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me.
*snicker* Gotta admit he's got a point, there. For as quick as we are to call each other rude, most of us are pretty damned rude to each other--bein' both victim and perpetrator there, myself.

Still think he's wrong about the cables, tho.
post #149 of 211
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricky
[B]

Quote:


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.
Ricky,
It is you who need to provide proof of your assertions. I have in another thread shown quite clearly that my arguements are valid and factual. You, however, simply made statements with NO substantiation. Substantiate your assertion.
post #150 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kelly

*snicker* Gotta admit he's got a point, there. For as quick as we are to call each other rude, most of us are pretty damned rude to each other--bein' both victim and perpetrator there, myself.

Still think he's wrong about the cables, tho.
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm an *******. I still think it's arrogant and arrogant to try to convince others that what they hear with thier own ears is, in fact, not really there. It would be different if there were some science behind the claims which there are not. Posting a test that has too many flaws to even be listed is hardly scientific in nature. The type of scientific test this argument needs transcends the internet and must, in fact, be done in-person. Even still proper ABX testing for cables is a tough, if not downright impossible, thing to accomplish. It all boils down to the differencecs, that *DO IN FACT EXIST* being subjective to the listener.

Taking a ****ty sound card and pushing audio through it with different cables to prove your point is, well, downright ****ing idiotic in nature. There's a very good reason that soundcards used by professionals are, by nature, anything *BUT* "non-expensive but decent quality soundcard[s]." Well, what about the power supply and all the other **** inside a PC that produces noise pollution? What soundcard is it? Like I said, there are just too many problems with this loosly-controlled test for it to be considered anything more than laughable.

*THIS* is why i think that Ricky is an arrogant idiot with regards to this field. Who knows, in real-life Ricky might be a very nice person and has a cure for cancer on a notebook stashed away in his closet along with solutions to mathmatical problems that haven't been solved. But when it comes to cables and the 'testing', he is clearly both and idiot and arrogant in his views.

That's not to say that I'm not, however. After all it 'takes one to know one.'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked