My cable test enterprise - Page 5

«Significant» already implies interpretation. Also <0.1dB is considered insignificant by conservative standards and nonetheless of importance in some cases. Just translate the same amount to phase deviations! You never really know.

Have you taken notice of my corresponding report a few posts back?

Phase and transient response are just two different aspects of the same thing: the time axis. If a deviation of <0.1 dB is audible, the inevitable phase/transient distortion that comes with it can just as well be audible or is even the cause for audibility.

If you do the ABX test, please do it in an unbiased, non-ideologic manner that makes it as easy as possible to find audible differences, not the other way round!
.

I think Nick really needs to compare some better cables to the ones he has. go silver, signal cable silver resolution cable with bullet can be had for $100 from audiogon. homegrownaudio also has nice silver cables. then come back and tell us your opinions.

below certain price point, or after certain price point, probably it is hard to tell a difference. but I think there is a notable improvement going from $30 IC to $200 IC. This is my opinion after comparing my BJC IC with signal silver and another DIY silver cable.

My claim stands: Do the test as unbiased an non-ideologic as possible -- and in a way that excludes all variables which could affect the perceptibility by introducing further distortion and thus minimizing the differences to insignificance! I must say, though, that your latest statements make me quite pessimistic in this regard.

I'm out.
.

Do you only need one cable, as in not both cables of an RCA set? If so I may be able to send over one of the "granddaddy" Cardas Golden References that I received when doing my test. I have a pair of paper clip ICs I may be able to send along with that. That should provide enough variation (both in price - 10$ compared to 1200$) and in conductor material ( steel or aluminum - whatever paper clips are made of - versus golden ratio stranded copper constant q blah). I also have a little white POS cable. The largest measured difference I came up with was between the Cardas Golden Reference and this little white POS. Heres a picture with white noise showing electrical differences -


Send me a pm if you are interested. I need to talk it over with my folks though, even though its only half of a set it still holds some type of value I guess.

Dave

Well, then this cable test will be of little worth, nothing than an entertaining exercise.


That sounds fine, but even if you come to the conclusion that the difference is non-existent or negligible (which I would be surprised about), there's still a considerable probability that the essential signal content responsible for the cable differences has gone lost.

I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I count myself to the «cable believers», and as such I have made the experience that cable differences are gone after digitization. Honestly, I was a bit baffled about your invalidation of my test result just because it wasn't gained from a blind test. Do I need blinded eyes to not hear a difference? Just so much: I also couldn't see the cables in the other tests where I was able to detect the difference -- of course still knowing which was which.

Now you have so much fear of being biased by the look of the cables -- maybe justified under the circumstances you're describing. At the same time you measure them thoroughly with the conviction to not find a significant measuring difference, since cables are «passive devices». BTW, I know many passive devices that alter the sound, such as resistors, capacitors, headphones, loudspeakers...

For an unbiased approach it would be important to do listening tests before the measurings. Otherwise the test person is prone to be biased by the latter. That's why the more serious test magazines consequently stick to this order. You don't seem to care about that. That's another reason why -- contrary to my initial goodwill statement -- I don't believe anymore that your approach is entirely unbiased and non-ideological, also because of some of your interim reactions. You rather seem decided to make your test an «objectivist statement» of the well-known kind (maybe not even consciously). Sorry if I am completely wrong, that's just my now impression.

BTW, to discuss DBT, we're obviously in the wrong forum. Anyway, some more thoughts about DBT: To enable the highest likelihood for detecting audible differences, it is extremely important to know which sample you listen to at the very moment. Of course not the type of cable, but let's name it cable A and cable B. The other (often used) variant, random music samples, is virtually doomed to produce negative results. Without anchor points within the chaotic pattern of sample series the ears are overstrained.

It's not like two pictures you can compare each time you change your line of sight and with which you always perceive the same details and after a certain time are certainly able to detect the (possible) differences. With random music samples you get a constant change of signal shape, never will there be two identical sequences you can hear any time you like and compare any time you like. But the former method takes even more time than the latter, so I don't think it's a real option for you in the case you renounce digitization. And that's my main objection against your (planned) test array: It's by far not designed for maximum likelihood of positive results.
.

Cool picture myinitialsaredac.

At this point this thread is as scientific as the threads in sound science forum where DBT is allowed, a simple pm to a mod can get it moved.