Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The Objectivist Audio Forum: Post #5 : Is Is Possible To Hear Something That Can't Be Measured?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Objectivist Audio Forum: Post #5 : Is Is Possible To Hear Something That Can't Be Measured? - Page 8

post #106 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post
I've done the sine sweeps and sine waves are totally unrevealing. For a simple time domain based test, pink or white noise might reveal gross differences, but I doubt we would learn much from that. As I mentioned in a previous post, the differences probably are (IMHO) a complex collection of parameters that only affect in an audible sense, complex musical waveforms.

These waveforms are often thought of as two dimensional sine waves, but are they not three dimensional pulses within the conductor, pulses of electrons like waves, traveling at the speed of light(186,000 miles per second), and indeed higher frequency pulses riding on top of lower frequency pulses?
Complex, indeed. Would one sine wave at a time be different from multiple (complex) frequencies simultaneously?
post #107 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
These waveforms are often thought of as two dimensional sine waves, but are they not three dimensional pulses within the conductor, pulses of electrons like waves, traveling at the speed of light(186,000 miles per second), and indeed higher frequency pulses riding on top of lower frequency pulses?
Complex, indeed. Would one sine wave at a time be different from multiple (complex) frequencies simultaneously?
First, electron "flow" in a conductor is below the speed of light, and this "propagation velocity" differs from conductor to conductor, cable to cable. We, as best we know, (body of knowledge) have a pretty good understanding of this and pretty much all cables are characterized by propagation velocity using commonly available Time Domain Reflectometers. Actually careful TDR analysis of a cable and connectors may be revealing of some audible differences. I haven't had the interest and the instrumentation at the same time.

IME, the sort of program material you suggest ( sine wave modulated sine waves ) would not produce audible differences. I have a lot of CD's that sound great in their own right, but do not reveal any cable to cable audible differences, where other CD's I have do reveal audible differences. Any audio program material (music) is a far more complex waveform than any simple collection of sine waves. Careful observation of high frequency square waves may reveal some differences, but again, I'm not sure it would correlate with what we hear.
post #108 of 170
I've got so many questions and ideas, but don't want to be off topic.
post #109 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
I've got so many questions and ideas, but don't want to be off topic.
Hi Digger

Feel free to start a new thread following this format:

The Objectivist Audio Forum: Your Topic Here

so it will be easily recognized as one of ours and when searched will come up with our other threads.

I look forward to seeing what's on your mind.

USG
post #110 of 170
Having had the same experience as KW above, is it correct to say that the "space" or "soundstage" or "placement of instruments/vocals" is actually determined by the quality and method of recording/mixing?... and that the space, etc.(or lack thereof) is actually "there within the recording", it is actually the space(or timing) between the waves, just like the space between the instruments at the time of recording, provided of course that each instrument or person has or does not have an individual mic there with, as opposed to just two mics at a distance recording.

What we are doing with our source, amp, cable, phone is trying to "reveal" the same space that is in the recording, or perhaps accentuate it somewhat.

It would not take much distance between the waves of the guitar and the waves of the drum, as viewed on the O'scope, to equate to several feet of perceived distance to the listener.

that's enuf.
post #111 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
Having had the same experience as KW above, is it correct to say that the "space" or "soundstage" or "placement of instruments/vocals" is actually determined by the quality and method of recording/mixing?... and that the space, etc.(or lack thereof) is actually "there within the recording", it is actually the space(or timing) between the waves, just like the space between the instruments at the time of recording, provided of course that each instrument or person has or does not have an individual mic there with, as opposed to just two mics at a distance recording.

What we are doing with our source, amp, cable, phone is trying to "reveal" the same space that is in the recording, or perhaps accentuate it somewhat.

It would not take much distance between the waves of the guitar and the waves of the drum, as viewed on the O'scope, to equate to several feet of perceived distance to the listener.

that's enuf.
Digger, I believe your perception is largely correct. This is not going to be observable with an oscilloscope however, but I'm diggin' your thinkin'!
post #112 of 170
...and the 'Sound Science' forum are now alive!
Guess its time to dig through those five 'The Objectivist Audio Forum' threads...
post #113 of 170
wavoman -

I don't know if this is much use to you, but I did try a few different cables tested on an AP SYS-2722 as well as a dedicated spectrum analyser, both of which could store FFTs, so I was able to use both a signal generator as well as music. I found, overall, I got more difference just from how I arranged the cable spacially than I did from changing cables (e.g. wrapping it around my arm sometimes gave me 2dB better THD+N). The reason is probably mostly noise, although sometimes harmonic amplitudes changed a bit. However, at the level I was looking at in the generated references (<-100dB), we're talking amplitudes in the microvolts, and practically everything will affect it. On music it's harder to sort out one thing from another, but I didn't see anything substantial; nothing that would at least resemble an audible phenomenon per psychoacoustic theory.

For the most part it seems something of reasonably low capacitance, with good shielding and isolation between the conductors, was sufficient, as opposed to bleeding edge hyper-engineered interconnects. Actually, what I found generally is that proper shielding for everything mattered a heck of a lot more than something like cables. I don't even entirely understand why people think cables would matter. Audio is not a hydraulic system. Signal 'path' is more a metaphor to refer to what's going on in the abstract than a physical model whereby exotic conductive materials are needed to provide a suitable conduit.
post #114 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post
wavoman -

I don't know if this is much use to you, but I did try a few different cables tested on an AP SYS-2722 as well as a dedicated spectrum analyser, both of which could store FFTs, so I was able to use both a signal generator as well as music. I found, overall, I got more difference just from how I arranged the cable spacially than I did from changing cables (e.g. wrapping it around my arm sometimes gave me 2dB better THD+N). The reason is probably mostly noise, although sometimes harmonic amplitudes changed a bit. However, at the level I was looking at in the generated references (<-100dB), we're talking amplitudes in the microvolts, and practically everything will affect it. On music it's harder to sort out one thing from another, but I didn't see anything substantial; nothing that would at least resemble an audible phenomenon per psychoacoustic theory.

For the most part it seems something of reasonably low capacitance, with good shielding and isolation between the conductors, was sufficient, as opposed to bleeding edge hyper-engineered interconnects. Actually, what I found generally is that proper shielding for everything mattered a heck of a lot more than something like cables. I don't even entirely understand why people think cables would matter. Audio is not a hydraulic system. Signal 'path' is more a metaphor to refer to what's going on in the abstract than a physical model whereby exotic conductive materials are needed to provide a suitable conduit.
I guess this means that you've never heard substantive differences between interconnect cables then? I'm not trying to challenge you, but rather, trying to better understand your personal perspective.
Thanks,
post #115 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post
wavoman -

I don't know if this is much use to you, but I did try a few different cables tested on an AP SYS-2722 as well as a dedicated spectrum analyser, both of which could store FFTs, so I was able to use both a signal generator as well as music. I found, overall, I got more difference just from how I arranged the cable spacially than I did from changing cables (e.g. wrapping it around my arm sometimes gave me 2dB better THD+N). The reason is probably mostly noise, although sometimes harmonic amplitudes changed a bit. However, at the level I was looking at in the generated references (<-100dB), we're talking amplitudes in the microvolts, and practically everything will affect it. On music it's harder to sort out one thing from another, but I didn't see anything substantial; nothing that would at least resemble an audible phenomenon per psychoacoustic theory.

For the most part it seems something of reasonably low capacitance, with good shielding and isolation between the conductors, was sufficient, as opposed to bleeding edge hyper-engineered interconnects. Actually, what I found generally is that proper shielding for everything mattered a heck of a lot more than something like cables. I don't even entirely understand why people think cables would matter. Audio is not a hydraulic system. Signal 'path' is more a metaphor to refer to what's going on in the abstract than a physical model whereby exotic conductive materials are needed to provide a suitable conduit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post
I guess this means that you've never heard substantive differences between interconnect cables then? I'm not trying to challenge you, but rather, trying to better understand your personal perspective.
Thanks,

Hi KW...

How can you be sure the differences you heard were not the effect of positional changes or cable arrangement as Filburt suggested?

USG
post #116 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by upstateguy View Post
Hi KW...

How can you be sure the differences you heard were not the effect of positional changes or cable arrangement as Filburt suggested?

USG
Good question!
Because they weren't. I was very conscious of and careful with lead dress/cable arrangement. Things were arranged for minimum mechanical stress.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, cable geometry, conductor to conductor spacing, insulator and shield materials, and shield to conductor spacing ALL can affect the alteration of the signal through the cable. I was aware of this and these sorts of differences DO cause audible differences in cables.
post #117 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post
Good question!
Because they weren't. I was very conscious of and careful with lead dress/cable arrangement. Things were arranged for minimum mechanical stress.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, cable geometry, conductor to conductor spacing, insulator and shield materials, and shield to conductor spacing ALL can affect the alteration of the signal through the cable. I was aware of this and these sorts of differences DO cause audible differences in cables.
KW, would you be willing to share with us,
  • what you heard (it would be great if you could go into some detail so we could get a feel for your process)
  • the cables you tested
  • how they differed from each other
  • what your expectations were as you went into the test
USG
post #118 of 170
Congratulations USG on getting Sound Science up and running.

Filburt -- interesting measurements!

Here were the conditions of the cable test (listener blind) I took during the NJ meet.

Source: iMod (Red Wine Audio mod of 5.5g iPod)

Track: uncompressed file -- sample from Handel's Messiah.

Phones: beyer 880/600 ohm, with moon-audio silver dragon cable.

Portable Amp: iQube.

Whiplash Audio built two mini2mini IC's, one copper, and one "silver".

With my back to them, they played the passage over and over, changing the mimi2mini every time.

I would design the test differently -- change at random, so the brain cannot pick up on the alternating pattern -- i.e., some comparisons would be phony, and this would get recorded.

I heard a clear difference. I could pick this out blind, no question. I labeled "A" the warmer, and it turned out "A" was the silver, the opposite of what I expected.

I think actually "B" was the better cable, giving more detail and separation. "Warmth" might have been distortion.

I look forward to doing this more carefully with randomized (some false) comparisons.
post #119 of 170
Hello kwkarth: I am not questioning your comments but, is there any data that demonstrates cables make a significant difference in sound?
post #120 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilency View Post
Hello kwkarth: I am not questioning your comments but, is there any data that demonstrates cables make a significant difference in sound?
Hi Gilency and welcome!
Good question! As far as I am aware, there is no officially recognized data that validates a difference. That is our holy grail. Many of us hear the differences, but as far as I know, there is no published measurement data to corroborate what we hear.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The Objectivist Audio Forum: Post #5 : Is Is Possible To Hear Something That Can't Be Measured?