Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Is copper warmer because of signal loss?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is copper warmer because of signal loss? - Page 22  

post #316 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarinthegourd View Post
That is an interesting topic. Back when I was using a minidisc, I did some A/Bs where I consistently PREFERRED the sound of ATRAC3 to the original CD source. It sounded warmer to me. This is a lossy codec, but one which is far more advanced psychoacoustically than something like mp3.

Here's an interesting clip from that same worthless document. (It's worth reading.)

Quote:
Besides the danger of listening to equipment instead of music, the next most fundamental challenge to useful evaluation is overcoming the amazing human ability to adapt.

• We are astonishingly capable of “seeing” through distortion. We (generally) don’t feel our clothes, yet we are sensitive to even a single rain drop falling on our clothing. We can wear all colors of sun-glasses and yet still see that the sky is blue. If we use yellow goggles while skiing on a cloudy day,
when we take them off the snow looks purple. The “solution” isn’t to get out the yellow paint to fix the snow, the solution is to allow ourselves time to re-calibrate our references. Once we have adjusted to a colored (distorted) reference, we can be fooled into thinking reality is wrong.

Have you ever been given a cassette tape and you didn’t know if it was Dolby encoded or not? You probably pushed the Dolby button on and off, while you were playing the tape, in an attempt to decide which way was correct. Odds are that both positions sounded wrong. One way sounded too bright and the other sounded too dull. In this artificial context one is faced with two conflicting references, both of which make the other sound wrong. A common response is to wish there were a middle position, even though one of the existing positions is absolutely correct and the other is absolutely wrong.

This is an example of how an instant comparison can be a highly deceptive selling technique and not part of a trustworthy evaluation methodology. Whoever controls the switch can sell whatever they want. This also applies to a lone individual doing an “evaluation” by themselves. Just because a second party isn’t involved doesn’t prevent someone from “selling” themselves whichever component first grabs their attention, whichever one got the good review, whichever one has an attractive story.

• Another simple opportunity for deception (including self-deception) is the A/B phenomenon: The second time a piece of music is played, the listener is bound to notice something that wasn’t noticed the first time-even with familiar music. This perception feeds directly into the value system which dictates that more information is our most commanding priority. If you want to sell something, always play it second.

There are ways around this pitfall: Go back to “A”. No matter which is better, going back to “A” will be a surprise. Since the step from “A” to “B” included the “novelty factor” in addition to the real difference, the step back to “A” will be surprisingly different from the original step to “B”, simply because the novelty factor has disappeared. “A” will seem to be better than when played the first time. Continuing on to play “B” a second time, without the benefit of the novelty factor, then reveals its truer relationship to “A”. After an initial A/B/A/B, it is possible to move to “C” and “D” with far less confusion.

• It can be easier to evaluate three products instead of the apparently simpler task of evaluating only two. Even without the deception of an instant A/B, any A/B is subject to a certain amount of the effect described with the cassette tape example-the truth is perceived as somewhere between the two.
If two of the three products are relatively similar, probably (but not always) different models from the same manufacturer, then it is quite easy to establish an absolute hierarchy between the two products.

When a third and different product is compared to a similar pair, it becomes a comparison between a line and a point, instead of just between two points. It becomes much easier to establish a hierarchy: that the third product is preferable to either member of the pair, inferior to either, or somewhere in-between.

• There is almost no way back to the “garden” of complete innocence. It requires great awareness and careful methodology to attain anything like the direct vision available to those who cannot be distracted by misleading details. This view flies in the face of those who declare that people have to learn what is good sound, go to lots of live concerts and study the technology. Bull!

The only thing that needs to be learned is how not to be misled by the incredibly deceptive process of listening to equipment. People hear real sounds all day long. None of these real sounds has the added layers of distortion which exist in every audio system. Whether or not we have ever heard a particular singer or instrument, we can recognize whether more or less “extra stuff” is in the way.

• As for comparisons where there seem to be only “insignificant” differences between components, this is usually proof of a faulty context and/or methodology. This is most obvious in the discussion of ABX testing.
In an ABX set-up, the listener does not know whether or not there has been any equipment change at all. ABX testing is not a question of how a fixed but blind “A” compares to a fixed but blind “B”. Because there are too many unknowns, the ABX test becomes primarily an opportunity for embarrass-
ment. Context is everything, and the ABX set-up is one very distorted context, much too far removed from the purpose of an audio system. ABX fans believe that a lack of repeatable hierarchy proves there are no valid differences. Others of us believe the same evidence proves that the ABX test is an invalid methodology.

Does all this mean that trustworthy conclusions are impossible? No. It means a balanced perspective is paramount. It’s a little like shopping for advice (which really is more useful than shopping for equipment): If honesty is the sole criterion, you’ll probably end up taking advice from someone honest, but
incompetent. If competency is the sole criterion you get the picture.
post #317 of 452
Why was my post deleted?

Since my post was deleted, I will repeat my request to tourmaline that he point us to the thread that he referenced above that in a prior thread, some "skeptics" argued that, "the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard." I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything. I simply want him to identify the source of the statements that he has paraphrased.
post #318 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Why was my post deleted?

Since my post was deleted, I will repeat my request to tourmaline that he point us to the thread that he referenced above that in a prior thread, some "skeptics" argued that, "the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard." I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything. I simply want him to identify the source of the statements that he has paraphrased.
Do it in a non inflammatory and respectful fashion and all is good.
post #319 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The plain truth is, there are MUCH more efficient and inexepensive ways to improve your system than to plunk down a Benjamin for each wire connecting it.

See ya
Steve
Really? What does a good amp cost ya? What does a good cdplayer cost ya, what does a good cartridge cost ya.

You of all should know that good equipment don't come cheap.

For your info, there are also wireless sound systems for sale. So how would you spend all the money on cables in such a system?

All reports i read say that thiose wireless sytems cannot match a good cabled system.

Cables are a necessary and i like em as good as they come.
post #320 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post

I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything.
Then why do you need a link. You know the search function on head-fi?
post #321 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
Really though, if the result of a positive result for any reason, it would be a huge step forward. The claim of "cables don't matter" would be bunk, even if the secret was the dielectric.
Dielectric & how the conductors are configured will tend to have the greatest effect. This effect is measurable though the effects shown in measurements are usually out of the audio band according to measurements

Just because the measurements indicate the the effects should be out of band doesn't mean however that the effects can't be heard. A 1500pf silver mica cap bypassing a metalyzed film cap of 8-10uf should be inaudible in a 4 ohm speaker set (these caps were in a passive crossover of a speaker). But let me assure you thier effects were very audible. The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response.
post #322 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post
Dielectric & how the conductors are configured will tend to have the greatest effect. This effect is measurable though the effects shown in measurements are usually out of the audio band according to measurements

Just because the measurements indicate the the effects should be out of band doesn't mean however that the effects can't be heard. A 1500pf silver mica cap bypassing a metalyzed film cap of 8-10uf should be inaudible in a 4 ohm speaker set (these caps were in a passive crossover of a speaker). But let me assure you thier effects were very audible. The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response.
I can tell ya for sure that changing the coupler caps on my tube amp for silver signal caps made a huge difference!
post #323 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post
Who is advocating spending big bucks on cables? Name one person here and when you do, cite the evidence.
Tourmalene. He has said repeatedly that the sound quality of cables improves in direct relationship to their cost. He has also said, "You get what you pay for." When questioned, he resorts to the old line, "it must be your lousy ears or your lousy equipment". It isn't ears or equipment. It's horse sense and professional experience.

See ya
Steve
post #324 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post
The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response.
There is a difference between frequency response and frequency extension. Something can sound muffled and still have super high frequency content. It's all about the balance of frequencies. Masking, which is the result of relatively minor imbalances in frequencies an octave down the band, can completely change the color of the sound. It's entirely possible that an imbalance in the mids can affect the perceived sound of the high frequencies.

Masking is a psychoacoustic principle that I've heard is utilized in compression codecs, but I haven't heard many hifi nuts address it in their systems. I suspect that it has a big part in a lot of the observations regarding "veils" and "soundstage". (Two very inexact terms that are thrown around a lot here.)

See ya
Steve
post #325 of 452
I don't want to dig up my old text book. So I use the lazy man's research Wikipedia for skin effect.
The formula for 10% increase in resistance in copper is
D=200mm/sqrt(f)
For 20KHz, the diameter is 1.44mm and for 100KHz is 0.2mm. You guys can interpret these result.

Now for interconnect, resistance is not critical because the amplifiers input are usuallly high impedance. So the effect on this skin effect is really where the pole of the filter is. For practical purpose, I don't think skin effect is going to change the flatness of the frequency reponse much unless you are using wire thicker than 1.44mm
post #326 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Then why do you need a link. You know the search function on head-fi?
You have (1) paraphrased a statement (2) purportedly made (3) by an unidentified person (4) in an unidentified thread.

Why are you so afraid to provide a link so that people can read whatever it is that unidentified person *actually* said?
post #327 of 452
So, I'm guessing no headway was made while I was gone?

The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?

Since this thread has failed to come up with any supporting evidence in its 17 pages, I consider it safe to conclude it never will. As no thread, on any forum has seemed to come to anything solid.

Anyone who read those links I provided way back though, most likely have figured out this whole situation them self.

When, if ever, any sort of even remotely controlled testing is provide, I'll take a look, until then, this is just a repeating cycle of ignored words from both sides.
post #328 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Tourmalene. He has said repeatedly that the sound quality of cables improves in direct relationship to their cost. He has also said, "You get what you pay for." When questioned, he resorts to the old line, "it must be your lousy ears or your lousy equipment". It isn't ears or equipment. It's horse sense and professional experience.

See ya
Steve
Yeah, but he also said he bought used to mitigate the high cost. That's good advice, no?
post #329 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
So, I'm guessing no headway was made while I was gone?

The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?

Since this thread has failed to come up with any supporting evidence in its 17 pages, I consider it safe to conclude it never will. As no thread, on any forum has seemed to come to anything solid.

Anyone who read those links I provided way back though, most likely have figured out this whole situation them self.

When, if ever, any sort of even remotely controlled testing is provide, I'll take a look, until then, this is just a repeating cycle of ignored words from both sides.
Welcome back. Might be something worth reading in the stuff you missed.
post #330 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post
Welcome back. Might be something worth reading in the stuff you missed.
I skimmed, and seems the bickering still has kept up. I'd rather not get involved again.

I may end up reading something and become compelled to share my views, which usually come off pretty harsh.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Is copper warmer because of signal loss?