Absolute Phase Question..

[gregorio]

imo gathering from some experiments …

You think the video is presenting valid experiments? It’s the same old story, all you post is YouTube videos because of course YouTube only contains reliable information, while encyclopaedias, text books and scientific papers should be avoided at all costs. Did you miss above where it says “Sound Science”? And incidentally, the presented video is also applicable to headphones, assuming of course you’re actually using 150ft HP cables!

it feels like he is fully aware of how science claims things to be …

As you don’t know “how science claims things to be” then you cannot know whether “he is fully aware” of it. Therefore, what “it feels like” to you is not related to whether he knows the science at all.

e-guitar + vocals perhaps? there are probably a few other things where this is possible with analog passtrough if you really want to …

Where would that e-guitar + vocals be coming from and how would it therefore be “possible with analogue pass through”?

but my guess is very low latency is just fine , but there is a reason why musicians try to optimize there daw for the lowest latency possible

Very low latency IS just fine (around 3ms or so) and yes, “there is a reason why musicians try to optimise their daw” for low latency, it’s to try to keep it to around 3ms or so (when tracking)! Isn’t that obvious? And incidentally, it’s a particularly bad idea to optimise a daw for the “lowest latency possible”, so your assertion is BS twice over. That’s impressive even by your standards!

You’re just piling BS on top of BS. You clearly don’t know what the science demonstrates/claims or apparently even what science is, and you obviously don’t know how recording is done or how DAWs work, so you simply make up piles of $hit instead. What’s the point? It’s extremely rude in a Sound Science forum in the first place and you’re delusional if you think anyone here is going to actually accept it? So, the answer to my prior question (“When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and being so rude?”) is obviously : “Not yet”!

G

 

[71 dB]

imo gathering from some experiments he did like this one:



it feels like he is fully aware of how science claims things to be, but he chooses methods to proof why it might be still audible to him, in that regard he is actually one of very few guys on youtube that chooses to do things that way and imo its the right approach to proof your/his subjective expierence with objectible data, atleast better than with some DBT and supposed perfect studies

he also is a big fan of some small A/B XLR switcher shown in few other videos

Well, I watched the video and found nothing surprising nor controversial about it. The 12 gauge wire of these tests have a resistance of about 0.01 Ω/m. Using this value to calculate the resistances of each set up we get:

18" + 25' = 0.46 m + 7.62 m = 8.08 m (0.081 Ω)
100' + 25' = 30.48 m + 7.62 m = 38.1 m (0.381 Ω)
150' + 25' = 45.72 m + 7.62 m = 53.34 m (0.533 Ω)

The connectors and switch increase the resistance a little bit, say 0.02 Ω. Adding this to the values above we have

18" cable setup: 0.101 Ω
100' cable setup: 0.401 Ω
150' cable setup: 0.553 Ω

While these resistance levels are not large enough to totally ruin the sound, the differences are large enough to create audible differences. The output impedance of the amp should be around 0.05-0.1 Ω. The speaker (SB28 Dual 18-inch Subwoofer) is given nominal impedance of 4 Ω (I didn't find online any kind of measurements). Given these specs, it is not a miracle there are audible differences between the long and short cables. The perceived differences agree well with what science suggests. Dave Rat did not suggest using $1000/ft snake oil cables. The cables here are normal pro speaker cables without unicorn farts and rainbow glitter as far as I can see.

I don't know what your point was exactly (just defending Dave Rat?), but this is my reply to it.

You think the video is presenting valid experiments? It’s the same old story, all you post is YouTube videos because of course YouTube only contains reliable information, while encyclopaedias, text books and scientific papers should be avoided at all costs. Did you miss above where it says “Sound Science”? And incidentally, the presented video is also applicable to headphones, assuming of course you’re actually using 150ft HP cables!

G

Dave Rat admits himself in the video the tests aren't conducted in the most accurate way possible, but he did conduct them well enough to bring out the differences of short and long wires. I didn't find clearly false claims in that video or anything that goes against what science textbooks say. Reading scientific papers can de demanding even for people who have proper education in the field not to mention people lacking such background. That's when videos like this can be helpful for people to learn things at least on some level. The problem with Youtube videos is that unless you already have knowledge on the subject, it is very difficult to know if the videos offer valid facts or not.

150 ft HP cables are the obvious solution when you don't want to go wireless, but want freedom to walk around at home.

 

[BS5711]

imo gathering from some experiments he did like this one:



it feels like he is fully aware of how science claims things to be, but he chooses methods to proof why it might be still audible to him, in that regard he is actually one of very few guys on youtube that chooses to do things that way and imo its the right approach to proof your/his subjective expierence with objectible data, atleast better than with some DBT and supposed perfect studies

he also is a big fan of some small A/B XLR switcher shown in few other videos


e-guitar + vocals perhaps? there are probably a few other things where this is possible with analog passtrough if you really want to

but my guess is very low latency is just fine , but there is a reason why musicians try to optimize there daw for the lowest latency possible

Isn’t he doing the exact opposite of what you do.

That is he actually did a blind test, albeit limited. and had objective measurements to back up his subjective assessment of audible differences.

You on the other hand make a subjective assessment of what you think you hear then reach for a theory to support that but have no measured data nor any real understanding of the theories you put forth.

FWIW, I could hear the difference through my iPhone speakers so I imagine it would have been very obvious in person. I doubt a more strictly controlled blind test over numerous repetitions was needed to establish audibility.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Isn’t he doing the exact opposite of what you do.

That is he actually did a blind test, albeit limited. and had objective measurements to back up his subjective assessment of audible differences.

not really, i posted enough measurements/objective differences/blind tests myself

of course these kind of post get bombarded like gregorio does "because they are so wrong"
im pretty sure gregorio would even argue with dave rate, as he demonstrated

Well, I watched the video and found nothing surprising nor controversial about it. The 12 gauge wire of these tests have a resistance of about 0.01 Ω/m. Using this value to calculate the resistances of each set up we get:

18" + 25' = 0.46 m + 7.62 m = 8.08 m (0.081 Ω)
100' + 25' = 30.48 m + 7.62 m = 38.1 m (0.381 Ω)
150' + 25' = 45.72 m + 7.62 m = 53.34 m (0.533 Ω)

The connectors and switch increase the resistance a little bit, say 0.02 Ω. Adding this to the values above we have

18" cable setup: 0.101 Ω
100' cable setup: 0.401 Ω
150' cable setup: 0.553 Ω

While these resistance levels are not large enough to totally ruin the sound, the differences are large enough to create audible differences. The output impedance of the amp should be around 0.05-0.1 Ω. The speaker (SB28 Dual 18-inch Subwoofer) is given nominal impedance of 4 Ω (I didn't find online any kind of measurements). Given these specs, it is not a miracle there are audible differences between the long and short cables. The perceived differences agree well with what science suggests. Dave Rat did not suggest using $1000/ft snake oil cables. The cables here are normal pro speaker cables without unicorn farts and rainbow glitter as far as I can see.

I don't know what your point was exactly (just defending Dave Rat?), but this is my reply to it.

Well, it wasnt the only differences he showed and the waveform difference is probably the one where science people would argue inaudibility where dave rat told us is subjective expierence with this beside the volume missmatch

As you don’t know “how science claims things to be” then you cannot know whether “he is fully aware” of it. Therefore, what “it feels like” to you is not related to whether he knows the science at all.

it really isnt hard to read what BS science claims, you might think that tho

Where would that e-guitar + vocals be coming from and how would it therefore be “possible with analogue pass through”?

like what are you even trying to accomplish?

even my interface can directly monitor the mic inputs trough headphones

And incidentally, it’s a particularly bad idea to optimise a daw for the “lowest latency possible”, so your assertion is BS twice over

for what reason if you dont get underruns? BS on your side, yet again

 

[71 dB]

Well, it wasnt the only differences he showed and the waveform difference is probably the one where science people would argue inaudibility where dave rat told us is subjective expierence with this beside the volume missmatch

Huh? I made (science based) calculations in order to estimate the differences in impedance present in his tests. My calculations are based on what we can know from the video and while I can't estimate the impedances very accurately, the values I listed in my post should not be far from the real impedances. I said in my post the values I calculated for the impedances will generate audible differences just as claimed in the video plus anyone with trained ears should be able to hear the differences while watching the video. I didn't even specify, what the differences are (Dave Rat describes them in his video!).

The impedance of the subwoofer should vary a lot in the 30-120 Hz range. The larger the resistance of the cable is, the more there is error in the frequency response compared to zero cable resistance (amp connected directly to the sub). These errors can be seen in the waveforms. They are clearly different from each other. Nothing in the video is surprising to me. This is how speakers and speaker cables work. You are acting as if this video debunked all sound science! It doesn't debunk anything. Sound science agrees with the findings of the video! If that's not the case, I have missed something completely.

I have said a million times here what we see is not what we hear. If we see differences in waveform, it doesn't necessarily tell if we can hear differences. Fortunately in this video listening tests of at least some sort were conducted so that we know THESE waveform differences happen to be also audible, which agrees with the prediction made from the cable resistance calculations.

I haven't seen anyone here say the differences are inaudible. I certainly don't argue that!

 

[gregorio]

Dave Rat admits himself in the video the tests aren't conducted in the most accurate way possible, but he did conduct them well enough to bring out the differences of short and long wires. I didn't find clearly false claims in that video or anything that goes against what science textbooks say.

I can’t agree with that. He ran the test well enough to show a difference and of course there should be a difference but I dispute that it was well enough run to “bring out the differences” he claimed. For example, he claimed an audible frequency difference but his test did not allow a reasonable comparison of the FR. In fact, I question his setup; a subwoofer with test signals 30-100Hz paired with the internal mics on a budget field recorder that have poor low frequency response, doesn’t make much sense.

That is he actually did a blind test, albeit limited. and had objective measurements to back up his subjective assessment of audible differences.

I can’t agree with this either. Firstly, just looking in a different direction is not a blind test, it’s not even a “limited” blind test. A “blind test” here means a DBT and a “limited blind test” would indicate a DBT with (for example) very few test subjects, little/no prior specific training or relatively few iterations, etc. Secondly, he did not have “objective measurements to back up his subjective assessment of audible differences”, except in one instance, a level difference.

For example, his subjective assessment that the longer cable has “a sort of stumble before it comes in” and a “time difference” that’s supposedly more audible than the level difference but his objective measurements in Premiere Pro ONLY demonstrate a level difference, they completely contradict this subjective assessment/observation because because apart from the obvious level difference, the timing, duration, relative levels, crossing points and number of peaks and troughs in both waveforms all line up pretty much perfectly! He also mentions tonal differences: “The signal lost in the cable has more high end, more punchy sounding” and indeed his normalised lost signal certainty contains more high end punch (up to 1kHz or more). There’s only one problem, his test signal does NOT contain any high end punch to start with, it contains nothing above 100Hz, so how could the long cable lose something that wasn’t there to start with? Clearly he’s screwed up big time somewhere. I have no issue with his audible volume/level difference conclusion but all the rest of his subjective assessments he’s either failed to support with objective measurements, actually disproven with his measurements or just screwed up!

of course these kind of post get bombarded like gregorio does "because they are so wrong"
im pretty sure gregorio would even argue with dave rate, as he demonstrated

If “they are so wrong” then yes, I will refute them, regardless of who they’re from! An “appeal to authority” is a fallacy and therefore cannot be science by definition, even more so if it’s you, because you don’t seem capable of identifying authorities anyway.

Well, it wasnt the only differences he showed …

Yes it was. There was no other audible difference between the cables that was “showed” other than the difference in level. He “showed” a difference in “high-end punch” but how is that a difference in the cables when the signal had no high-end punch?

it really isnt hard to read what BS science claims, you might think that tho

Great, if it “isn’t hard to read what BS science claims”, then it must be easy to cite where science claims a 0.8dB difference is inaudible and therefore if you don’t, you’ll have proven the BS is entirely YOURS!

like what are you even trying to accomplish?
even my interface can directly monitor the mic inputs trough headphones

I’m trying to accomplish your own example! A HP cue mix for a vocalist with electric guitar and other (presumably backing) vocals. And, what has your interface got to do with anything, don’t you know how recordings are made?

for what reason if you dont get underruns? BS on your side, yet again

If you don’t already know the answer to that question then YOU are the one spouting BS yet again. So why don’t you know, why don’t you go look it up before arguing, especially when arguing with someone who’s actually a DAW certified instructor and taught it at university?! There’s actually 2 reasons why you wouldn’t want to set the latency as low as possible, let’s see if you can figure either of them out or if you’re incapable of fact finding/checking!

G

 

[71 dB]

I can’t agree with that. He ran the test well enough to show a difference and of course there should be a difference but I dispute that it was well enough run to “bring out the differences” he claimed. For example, he claimed an audible frequency difference but his test did not allow a reasonable comparison of the FR. In fact, I question his setup; a subwoofer with test signals 30-100Hz paired with the internal mics on a budget field recorder that have poor low frequency response, doesn’t make much sense.
G

Poor low frequency response doesn't really matter, because it is the same for all cable set-ups. The differences are still there. Dave Rat didn't try to get accurate frequency response measured. He wanted to demonstrate how much cable length matters and he was able to pull that off. It is not 100 % about using the highest quality measurement gear. It is also about knowing what you are doing and using the gear you have cleverly.

 

[gregorio]

Dave Rat didn't try to get accurate frequency response measured. He wanted to demonstrate how much cable length matters and he was able to pull that off.

Again, I disagree. I agree that he “didn’t try to get accurate FR measured” but as he made various assertions about the FR then he should have! He did demonstrate that such cable lengths make an audible difference but his claims about the nature of the difference he did not pull off, in fact his own measurements contradicted most of those claims!

G

 

[71 dB]

Again, I disagree. I agree that he “didn’t try to get accurate FR measured” but as he made various assertions about the FR then he should have! He did demonstrate that such cable lengths make an audible difference but his claims about the nature of the difference he did not pull off, in fact his own measurements contradicted most of those claims!

G

Okay, he shound't have mentioned FR. He is just Dave Rat. He is better thought than some other people on Youtube talking complete BS (for example Ana[dia]log).

 

[gregorio]

Okay, he shound't have mentioned FR.

Great, we’re in agreement now. It is good he at least tried to get some objective measurements to back up the claim of level difference but I’m not sure who would have disputed that anyway. However, I’m not convinced there’s much weight to how much the level difference actually was, clearly there must be some significant amount of distortion occurring and I don’t get why he did the test with a sub, especially without a mic capable of responding well to bass freqs. I also don’t get why he didn’t do a spectrogram of the waveforms or better still the difference file. It’s unfortunate he made the claim that the timing was a more audible feature of the difference than the level, when his own waveform analysis demonstrated no timing difference at all but a significant level difference.

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

then it must be easy to cite where science claims a 0.8dB difference is inaudible and therefore if you don’t

AHH, thats why i was able to reliable tell 0.5db apart.... please leave me alone with your science BS

and even 0.2db on some broadband EQ are audible for me, just FYI

 

[gregorio]

AHH, thats why i was able to reliable tell 0.5db apart.... please leave me alone with your science BS
and even 0.2db on some broadband EQ are audible for me, just FYI

Either you think that’s a citation of science stating that a 0.8dB difference is inaudible, in which case it’s BS or you cannot provide a citation to that effect, in which case you’ve confirmed that your previous assertion was entirely BS. Either way, BS!

And if that’s not already more than enough BS, you’re also confirming that you are incapable of fact finding/checking, as you failed to respond to my point about your BS question about latency.

Again, it’s just more BS piled on BS and still no sign of you stopping making a fool of yourself or of being so rude! Not to mention the lunacy of posting “please leave me alone with your science ….” in a science discussion forum!! lmao, are you ill?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Either you think that’s a citation of science stating that a 0.8dB difference is inaudible

yea i misread that, +1 for you

 

[bigshot]

This guy is the energizer bunny of wrong.

 

[BS5711]

This guy is the energizer bunny of wrong.

What he talks about here is only the tip of the iceberg !