[Speedskater]

Isn't Kimber TC4 a speaker cable? I was thinking RCA interconnects.

 

[skwoodwiva]

Isn't Kimber TC4 a speaker cable? I was thinking RCA interconnects.

Speaker cable indeed., Moto Z, UAPP, Toneboosters and some heavily modded mdr1s! See DIY forum.
I may need a usb DAC, the UAPP does, now utilize the internal DAC fully to the point I can decern DSD 176k vs 750k, yes.

I always wanted a good DAC for the app.
All my Sony heavy "artillery" is long gone.
I have lived in the closet, lol, now for 24 years. When I learned the Z was 24/192 capable, I got my 2 TB of DSD & what not out of the attic, several 120 GB drives, lol. Now I have all on a Seagate 2 TB the Z & UAPP do play through of DSD iso's! Go figure!
Now lest my critics go hogwild, while I can tell a 176 from a 750 on the internal DAC that may be due more to the quality of these records rather than the DAC as UAPP does convert DSD to PCM.

Hence my desire to hear true DSD as recorded...

 

[amirm]

Amirm, you *need* to stop holding so much water for crack pot nonsense. You know this well is poisoned and yet you want him to continue to confirm his bias? We already know how this is going to work out. You can't do a blind test (especially of cables) by yourself!

There is nothing crackpot about someone learning to perform a controlled test. Are you afraid of the outcome as to protest this much? Have you run such a test and can document the protocol and outcome? If not, then let the man be.

You tried your way of insulting him left and right and it did not work. Let's see if this other method has value.

 

[colonelkernel8]

There is nothing crackpot about someone learning to perform a controlled test. Are you afraid of the outcome as to protest this much? Have you run such a test and can document the protocol and outcome? If not, then let the man be.

You tried your way of insulting him left and right and it did not work. Let's see if this other method has value.

Ridiculous. We already know the outcome. That’s how bad this “test” is going to be. Shame on you for supporting shoddy science.

 

[skwoodwiva]

There is nothing crackpot about someone learning to perform a controlled test. Are you afraid of the outcome as to protest this much? Have you run such a test and can document the protocol and outcome? If not, then let the man be.

You tried your way of insulting him left and right and it did not work. Let's see if this other method has value.

My underwriter!
Please listen to him.

Thank you Sir for the encouragement.
Not that I am hobbling in any way. I am going to next prove to my self that I can still ID the plated strand. Any criticisms?
Please advise finally, as to your "blind" requirements, this I want reinforced.

BTW I thank all here for patients in all this?
I am back in the saddle as an avid audiophile!
Fun it is. I never thought after letting go a 20 grand system. I could enjoy this again and in my pocket too.

 

[skwoodwiva]

This is a bit of fun and seeming off topic but it is not.
I use this. Can any guess what for?

 

[colonelkernel8]

This is a bit of fun and seeming off topic but it is not.
I use this. Can any guess what for?

MY CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS EXPERIMENT IS UNSHAKEN /s

 

[skwoodwiva]

MY CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS EXPERIMENT IS UNSHAKEN /s

You know, at your persistence in abuse here I must ask you for your acknowledgment that this test is not complete. If you cannot refrain from further jabs you only confirm you are incorrigible as your like post ratio leads one to surmise.

Opinions noted!

Stay off My thread!

 

[colonelkernel8]

You know, at your persistence in abuse here I must ask you for your acknowledgment that this test is not complete. If you cannot refrain from further jabs you only confirm you are incorrigible as your like post ratio leads one to surmise.

Stay off My thread!

Most of my posts were made before there was a "Like" system. That said, you have no business telling me which threads I can or cannot post in. This is a public forum in the most literal sense.

 

[amirm]

Please advise finally, as to your "blind" requirements, this I want reinforced.

First, I need to better understand what you are doing to the cables to hide their identity. Are you covering them both with tape such that you can't tell the difference between them? I am having a hard time figuring out how that is possible.

My original method called for hiding the cables somehow and have someone else swap them.

I am also not clear what cable you are building. Is this for headphones, speakers, interconnect or something else?

 

[skwoodwiva]

First, I need to better understand what you are doing to the cables to hide their identity. Are you covering them both with tape such that you can't tell the difference between them? I am having a hard time figuring out how that is possible.

My original method called for hiding the cables somehow and have someone else swap them.

I am also not clear what cable you are building. Is this for headphones, speakers, interconnect or something else?

All in the 1st few ops, I do not want you to bother,

Here vv notice the bulb of soldier on tip, 2 reasons, old style amphenol plug would not make good contact & I can identify the headphone end by touch.
Both are bulbed @ HP end.
Then I will make a file cut in the top of bulb of the silver "TC3" & none on the pure Kimber TC4

Refrigeration foam tape will hide everything else.

 

[skwoodwiva]

That is rather when I do want to ID them
The cut I can leave out & I am blind!

 

[gregorio]

[1] Ridiculous. We already know the outcome. That’s how bad this “test” is going to be.
[2] Shame on you for supporting shoddy science.

1. The OP has an absolute conviction which he appears absolutely determined to validate and on top of that, the methodology he's described would not appear to constitute a valid blind test. I would have to agree with you that given the information to date, the outcome is already determined and there is little chance of this test being valid.

2. I don't think this statement is entirely fair though. In the sense that this is obviously not going to be a laboratory controlled double blind test which is peer reviewed and replicated by other scientists, this test will definitely be "shoddy science". However, that by itself doesn't totally invalidate the results, the results could constitute somewhat reliable evidence, even though it doesn't reach the standards expected of published science. On the other hand, in the sense that the test as described so far is so "shoddy" that it's unrelated to science and would not result in evidence which is even somewhat reliable, I don't see that amirm is supporting that. Both before and since your post amirm has criticised the OP's methodology and shown scepticism that the described test would be legitimately "blind".

Please advise finally, as to your "blind" requirements, this I want reinforced.

Please be aware that the term "blind" when used in "blind testing" does NOT mean that the test subject (you in this case) cannot "see" which piece of equipment/cable is being tested. "Blind", as far as blind testing is concerned, means that the test subject cannot and does not "know" which piece of equipment/cable is being tested! You obviously cannot tape over the connectors, tape may not completely disguise the different weights or diameters of the different cables and even if it does, the application of tape to the different cables being tested will not be identical, providing an opportunity to differentiate the cables by subtle differences in how they've been wrapped. In other words, not being able to see the name of the cable would NOT make your test a blind test! To be a blind test you MUST NOT know which cable is which, you must not be able to see, smell, touch or in any way detect ANY differences whatsoever between the cables, with the SINGLE exception of what you hear while the cable is in-situ and transporting a music signal. I cannot see how it is possible for you to conduct this test on your own (you being both the test subject and the one swapping the cables) and for it to be a blind test!!!

G

 

[Glmoneydawg]

This is a bit of fun and seeming off topic but it is not.
I use this. Can any guess what for?

something very Hannibal Lecter about this

 

[colonelkernel8]

2. I don't think this statement is entirely fair though. In the sense that this is obviously not going to be a laboratory controlled double blind test which is peer reviewed and replicated by other scientists, this test will definitely be "shoddy science". However, that by itself doesn't totally invalidate the results, the results could constitute somewhat reliable evidence, even though it doesn't reach the standards expected of published science. On the other hand, in the sense that the test as described so far is so "shoddy" that it's unrelated to science and would not result in evidence which is even somewhat reliable, I don't see that amirm is supporting that. Both before and since your post amirm has criticised the OP's methodology and shown scepticism that the described test would be legitimately "blind".

G

I agree. I was unduly harsh on that one.