Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Conflicting information on Cables and other audiophile components.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Conflicting information on Cables and other audiophile components. - Page 10

post #136 of 241

Proper science requires experiments performed by qualified scientists that are submitted for peer review. I've never seen that done here.

 

Quote:
 Many of the people who act like hardcore scientists tend to apply their objectivism sporadically.

 

This I unfortunately see all the time.

 

On topic though: The conjecture is that cable materials and construction can smear signals in the time domain, which requires very expensive equipment to measure.

post #137 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Proper science requires experiments performed by qualified scientists that are submitted for peer review. I've never seen that done here.

Quote:
Many of the people who act like hardcore scientists tend to apply their objectivism sporadically.

This I unfortunately see all the time.

On topic though: The conjecture is that cable materials and construction can smear signals in the time domain, which requires very expensive equipment to measure.
Your first paragraph is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, are you now pretending that the Sound Science forum of Head-Fi is a vehicle for academic peer reviewed publication to rival, for example, the AES? Come on get real. redface.gif

Even hardcore scientists use shorthand and "take things as read" when they need to. It's called "not reinventing the wheel".

Regarding the point of time smear, your statement is also incorrect, a null test will reveal any time domain differences and there's plenty of free software to do that with. Even if that were not true, isn't it somewhat surprising that no cable manufacturer has acquired the equipment, regardless of cost, to prove that "real" scientists are a bunch of idiots? And then trumpet that in any piece of advertising they could and maybe even advance science by presenting papers for peer review at say the AES.....or Head-Fi Sound Science forum. wink.gif
Edited by Roly1650 - 8/8/14 at 5:20am
post #138 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

Proper science requires experiments performed by qualified scientists that are submitted for peer review. I've never seen that done here.

 

 

This I unfortunately see all the time.

 

On topic though: The conjecture is that cable materials and construction can smear signals in the time domain, which requires very expensive equipment to measure.

 

OK, then let's look at it anecdotally. Let's assume someone did a test comparing audio cables at varying price points and nobody was able to tell one from another when they didn't know which cable was in use at a given time.  How would you explain how people hear differences when they do know which of the same cables is in use?  No need for a test or a proof.  A logical explanation will suffice.

post #139 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by blades View Post

OK, then let's look at it anecdotally. Let's assume someone did a test comparing audio cables at varying price points and nobody was able to tell one from another when they didn't know which cable was in use at a given time.  How would you explain how people hear differences when they do know which of the same cables is in use?  No need for a test or a proof.  A logical explanation will suffice.

Isn't smelling part of tasting? Maybe seeing is part of hearing? I don't have a strong belief about it either way, but at least it respects their experiences.
post #140 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roly1650 View Post
 
Your first paragraph is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, are you now pretending that the Sound Science forum of Head-Fi is a vehicle for academic peer reviewed publication to rival, for example, the AES? Come on get real. redface.gif

Even hardcore scientists use shorthand and "take things as read" when they need to. It's called "not reinventing the wheel".

Regarding the point of time smear, your statement is also incorrect, a null test will reveal any time domain differences and there's plenty of free software to do that with. Even if that were not true, isn't it somewhat surprising that no cable manufacturer has acquired the equipment, regardless of cost, to prove that "real" scientists are a bunch of idiots? And then trumpet that in any piece of advertising they could and maybe even advance science by presenting papers for peer review at say the AES.....or Head-Fi Sound Science forum. wink.gif

 

Go and ask the engineers from the manufacturers about it all. I wont say any more than that, other than "no, the opposite" to your first line, which was my point. :smile: 

post #141 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Go and ask the engineers from the manufacturers about it all. I wont say any more than that, other than "no, the opposite" to your first line, which was my point. smile.gif  
OK then I apologize, shows how things can be misconstrued when you only have the written word. I'll pass on asking fellow engineers from cable companies however, let them publish and be damned!
post #142 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by blades View Post

OK, then let's look at it anecdotally. Let's assume someone did a test comparing audio cables at varying price points and nobody was able to tell one from another when they didn't know which cable was in use at a given time.  How would you explain how people hear differences when they do know which of the same cables is in use?  No need for a test or a proof.  A logical explanation will suffice.
Psychology takes over. I would present the hypothesis that knowing the cable quality causes a change in how the listener perceives the cable. He/She might listen more intently, relax, or even get stressed--if the listener believes he/she should be hearing a difference and doesn't.

If you wanted to test the hypothesis, what you would do is repeat the test you described with two groups (make sure you get a large enough sample size). Group A would be the control, and no one would know whick cable was which. Groub B would be told and/or shown which cable was being used. If group B has a statistically significant variance from group A, you have confirmed that there is a psychological component.

I am sure that there have been studies looking for exactly why one might hear those differences, too. That would be interesting, but also useful if we could determine what factors put one in the best listening mood.

EDIT: to expand a little more...if the listener hears a difference between two cables, something changed. My assertion has always been that if both cables are electrically good--no design flaws or damage--then the electrical difference will be minimal. That is, the cable really didn't change. However, the listener's mind has. Tell anyone that something has been changed and they will expect to see a difference. This change in mindset could easily make someone notice something that was there prior to the change in order to make sense of what he/she has been told.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I just don't want someone to spend a fortune for the wrong reasons, and I don't want that person to experience buyer's regret if he/she discovers that those reasons didn't hold up to expectations.
Edited by superjawes - 8/8/14 at 6:23am
post #143 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roly1650 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Go and ask the engineers from the manufacturers about it all. I wont say any more than that, other than "no, the opposite" to your first line, which was my point. smile.gif  
OK then I apologize, shows how things can be misconstrued when you only have the written word. I'll pass on asking fellow engineers from cable companies however, let them publish and be damned!

 

I don't always do a good job of expressing myself -- too much multitasking going on when I write sometimes.

 

The point I wanted to make is: If this is a science forum, then it should be a science forum. I closed yet another thread the premise of which was "Let's mock stuff we think is BS". Scientists sit around all day mocking stuff, but working, gradually and painstakingly to contribute to our understanding of ourselves, our world and our universe.

 

I think a better attitude towards the questions such as the OP asked in this thread would be to approach the experiences people have as something to be investigated and tested. As much as some people might wish, I think that the answers will not be absolute in many cases, and there is a bit of truth in every opinion.

post #144 of 241

 if people came up with opinions or suggestions instead of claims, then they simply wouldn't be bashed by fed up "ABX or it never happened" posts. I see the problem in that order and not the other way around.

when someone makes a claim, he should be able to back it up and explain at least something of it and a convincing way of how he came to that understanding. that's how we understand and learn in all domains. if it's talking for talking let's just stop pretending like anything is absolute and share opinions and theories while avoiding presenting them as claims.

 

about cable, how about the fact that the probe on the particle accelerator that will end up all life as we know it with a giant black hole (maybe one day.. soon...) is made of copper? but I guess our ears need more precision than a giant donut.

 

 

 

PS: so I'm not a real scientist even though I've been posting in sound science for months? I don't have what it takes to bring the bad news to my mother... she's so proud to have a scientist as a son.

sound science, it sounds like science, it has the color of science, but it's not science!

post #145 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

On topic though: The conjecture is that cable materials and construction can smear signals in the time domain, which requires very expensive equipment to measure.

True. One would need an expensive setup for measuring headphones.

Using speakers, one could use REW and a calibrated mic to generate waterfall plots and impulse response measurements to look for time domain variances with different audio innerconnects. Now I'm not sure how discriminating the mic needs to be for detecting audible differences (I'm not an engineer), but MiniDSP has a calibrated USB mic for under $100.
post #146 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Proper science requires experiments performed by qualified scientists that are submitted for peer review. I've never seen that done here.


This I unfortunately see all the time.

On topic though: The conjecture is that cable materials and construction can smear signals in the time domain, which requires very expensive equipment to measure.

Firstly, Your definition of science is incomplete. Theory (and related, computation) is a valid part of scientific advancement. These tool are especially valid where the underlying physics of the process are established. Considering that headphones and cables operate completely within the relms of newtonia mechanics and maxwells equations, zero further statistically valid experimental results are required to fully understand how a system functions given sufficient information about said system.

the statistical analysis of experimental data is required when the underlying physics are not yet established or unknown to the experimenter.

Secondly, nothing requires science to only be valid if the person perfoming the experiment to be a professional scientist. There are many named variables, principles, and theorems names after the amateur scientists who developed them.


Cheers
Edited by ab initio - 8/8/14 at 8:36am
post #147 of 241

Another factor (the human factor) that probably all of us are familiar with is listening to the same music on the same system at different times and having completely different experiences than before. In addition to the limitless subjectivity of thoughts and emotions, our brains and bodies are more sensitive to certain aspects of sound depending on...well, too many variables to list!

post #148 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post


Isn't smelling part of tasting? Maybe seeing is part of hearing? I don't have a strong belief about it either way, but at least it respects their experiences.

 

Yes, smell and taste do work together but they also work apart from each other.  Sight and hearing also work together and apart as you know.  Sight can confuse hearing when the brain is asked to distinguish between things that are either indistinguishable or very hard to distinguish.  "Their experiences" are easily explained and you already know the explanation.  The issue is that you don't like the explanation.  But science isn't concerned with individual beliefs or opinions.  It concerns itself with observeable phenomena, test results and facts.  All I'm saying is that your explanation is not logical.

post #149 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post

Firstly, Your definition of science is incomplete. Theory (and related, computation) is a valid stage in scientific advancement.

I think this is more accurate to replace "part of" with "stage in." Experimentation is a necessary stage of scientific advancement in conjunction with theory when a theory is contentious. Science depends on community consensus before things are accepted as truth or fact--if one understands scientific knowledge from a Vygotskian social constructionist perspective, which many theoretical and research scientist do.
post #150 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

True. One would need an expensive setup for measuring headphones.

Using speakers, one could use REW and a calibrated mic to generate waterfall plots and impulse response measurements to look for time domain variances with different audio innerconnects. Now I'm not sure how discriminating the mic needs to be for detecting audible differences (I'm not an engineer), but MiniDSP has a calibrated USB mic for under $100.
I think you're way over complicating this, if a cable or interconnect is time shifting the signal, it will show up in a null test of two recordings, one from the "suspect" and one from a reference. Software like Audio Diff Maker will time sync and level match automatically, before running the null test, ie: reverse phase on one recording by 180 degree and subtract that from the other recording. All you need is a good sound card to make the recordings, which you need for REW anyway.
Sure you don't get waterfall plots or impulse response graphs, both of which require interpretation, but you'll get an inkling of any timing errors by examining the difference signal in comparison to the original in any wave editor and/or by listening. What you will get is a number for the null difference and can decide whether that's humanly possible to hear in the presence of music.
Trying to discern differences with a $100 mic over speakers and REW is IMO, going to be really difficult and/or misleading, too many degrees of separation from measurement and DUT, but probably the way I'd go if I wanted to "prove" cables/interconnects make a difference. wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Conflicting information on Cables and other audiophile components.