Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 145

post #2161 of 3676
I didn't understand your point I'm afraid. I just couldn't conceive of worrying about transient response in anything *but* transducers.
post #2162 of 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I didn't understand your point I'm afraid. I just couldn't conceive of worrying about transient response in anything *but* transducers.

Was simply saying that transducers is the one area where everyone is in agreement with regard to audible differences. No one is going around saying all competently designed loudspeakers and headphones sound the same.

se
post #2163 of 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahhabb View Post

<snip>   As a scientist... <snip>

 

<snip>  I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.  <snip>

 

 

 

post #2164 of 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahhabb View Post

I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.
How I see it, all you did was wasting large amounts of money. You can get awesome - as much as I dislike to say it - "sounding" cables pretty cheap.

mikeaj and Steve Eddy already raised some good points about the rest you posted.

You can take all the time you want to do your own blind test with whatever music you choose and of course you also choose the components.
Quote:
The British term PRAT--for 'pace, rhythm and tempo'--defines another characteristic that takes some listening to recognize. But we live with our gear for a long time. That's why reviewers spend typically some months with a piece of gear before writing an article about it.
I only know it as pace, rhythm and timing. Imo it's just an audiophile figment. A way to artificially distinguish between components in sighted comparisons, or to be able to at least put some words on seemingly random feelings which at a closer look are clearly biased.
Edited by xnor - 8/7/13 at 11:09am
post #2165 of 3676

Pace, Rhythm and Timing are functions of the musician, not the equipment.

post #2166 of 3676

The equipment doesn't have "P,R&T". The equipment under review is judged on how well it conveys the "P,R&T" embodied in the recording to the listener. Some reviewers don't make that distinction very well.
 

post #2167 of 3676

It should be relatively difficult for different audio equipment to significantly alter PRaT in any way though.

 

Okay, a Sansa Clip plays some 0.25% too fast on stock firmware or what have you. The pace is literally off by some amount that some people might be able to hear (especially if A/B comparison). But it's relatively rare to see... a pace issue that bad? Plus, I don't really think that's what people are talking about?

 

If you have a speaker system with some extreme phase shifts, maybe a live enough room, you'd get enough issues to smear the beats to throw off the timing or rhythm maybe? Or at least the perception of where the energy is concentrated in a beat and thus where it lands in time. But these kinds of things are being attributed to amps, DACs, not to mention cables.

post #2168 of 3676

The transients in music are so slow compared to the ability of sound reproduction to reproduce them, I don't believe that there is equipment inaccurate enough to make one iota of impact on it. The only way that could happen is if you live in a train station.

post #2169 of 3676
We have exactly zero chance of an audiophile coming up with two similar, reasonable components, one with good 'PRaT' and one with bad 'PRaT'. While some make statements about 'PRaT' it all disappears in listening tests.

We must exclude components with euphonic coloration's like 'SET' amplifiers.
post #2170 of 3676

tubz aint smart enough to alter PRAT either - you need memory deep as the atleration is in time, and a way to alter the playback rate

 

 


Edited by jcx - 8/8/13 at 8:45am
post #2171 of 3676

I like this thread!

post #2172 of 3676

I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.

 

I have also had my wife do the same for me so I could listen without being influenced by what I thought something should sound like.

 

To summarize my experience over the course of many years of doing this:

 

Hearing something the first time and then the second time, it typically seems as if there is a significant difference, even if it is the exact same setup. Clearly, I listen differently after having heard a piece once.

 

Having said that, I have found that in many cases, there are obvious audible differences between cables, clear enough that the better cable can be immediately and consistently recognized.

 

Of course, there are other cable pairs that may sound different from one another, but without one clearly being "better."

post #2173 of 3676
Sounds like you've ended up with some pretty poorly designed cables.
post #2174 of 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahhabb View Post

I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.

When I ABX test with ABBA, I get a cheap little trashy tear in one eye.  Moma mia. 

post #2175 of 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahhabb View Post

I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.

 

[...]

 

Having said that, I have found that in many cases, there are obvious audible differences between cables, clear enough that the better cable can be immediately and consistently recognized.

Try a DBT. Do more trials. Document each trial, do not cherry pick.

 

If you achieve statistical significance we can start talking: what cables, what setup, ...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths