[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't it be easier to use a really bad cable. One that really compromises sonic performances. Instead of trying to prove the difference in cable performance though experiencing better sound the same could be done by demonstrating an impairment to performance. I'm sure more people would be willing to get involved because the cost of poor performing cables is probably cheap. Can anyone point me towards a bad sounding cable?

I did some tests using 77c unshielded cables and a variety of other cables up to $139, some solid copper, some stranded copper, some silver plated copper and some silver stranded. I did some blind tests between samples recorded using different cables and did some FR measurements of the different cables. I was unable to detect notable measurable differences and failed the DBTs , I did make some sample recordings available and to date nobody has been able to DBT any of the pairs of samples.

 

[dex85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif You also speak to Benchmark's use of DBTs. Many audiophile companies from Audio Research to Mark Levinson/Revel/Harman. Many cable companies use DBT.

i have very hard time believing this. one properly conducted and verified DBT between cables stand for much more than 10 questionable graphs and cables manufacturers know this damn well. no one with economic sense would pass on such opportunity as it could make for significant boost in the profit and end the argument for good. so what are they waiting for?

Quote:

To those who don't believe in cables, I would ask them to simply try a good cable and switch back and forth and listen for differences. Small ensemble acoustic groups can be the easiest to experiment with in my experience. Ideally a better than average recording as well.

the most interesting thing about this is people can point out differences so easily when A/B-ing, but don't stand chance when ABX-ing. go figure.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't it be easier to use a really bad cable. One that really compromises sonic performances. Instead of trying to prove the difference in cable performance though experiencing better sound the same could be done by demonstrating an impairment to performance. I'm sure more people would be willing to get involved because the cost of poor performing cables is probably cheap. Can anyone point me towards a bad sounding cable?

Lamp cord and spooled Monster zip cord. Listen for instrument separation and detail when switching them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex85 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i have very hard time believing this. one properly conducted and verified DBT between cables stand for much more than 10 questionable graphs and cables manufacturers know this damn well. no one with economic sense would pass on such opportunity as it could make for significant boost in the profit and end the argument for good. so what are they waiting for? the most interesting thing about this is people can point out differences so easily when A/B-ing, but don't stand chance when ABX-ing. go figure.

It's true that Harman and several other high end makers do conduct DBTs. Same for Audio Research.

As for A/B vs. A/B/X, think A/B/X is much tougher but I'm not convinced its because sound differences are not there...I think the test has limits in terms of people's hearing and how they are conducted but that's just a guess from sitting in on a couple.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did some tests using 77c unshielded cables and a variety of other cables up to $139, some solid copper, some stranded copper, some silver plated copper and some silver stranded. I did some blind tests between samples recorded using different cables and did some FR measurements of the different cables. I was unable to detect notable measurable differences and failed the DBTs , I did make some sample recordings available and to date nobody has been able to DBT any of the pairs of samples.

Nick,

Why don't you try a simple test of a low grade interconnect like Radio Shack versus a really good cable such as Kimber KCAG or even Pear Audio Comice silver which is $200/meter? It's really a noticeable difference.

I fear your tests did not have enough quality cable to represent what is possible since you stayed below $139.

Also, you need to measure things like conductance, etc.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for A/B vs. A/B/X, think A/B/X is much tougher but I'm not convinced its because sound differences are not there...I think the test has limits in terms of people's hearing and how they are conducted but that's just a guess from sitting in on a couple.

I have done several DBTs on myself, some I pass , some I fail, my (limited) experience is that the ones I pass are the ones where the magnitude of difference between A and B is greater. For instance low pass filters are trivial to detect until *I* get to above 10K when they progressively get harder, someone with better hearing would push that limit up but the pattern would be the same. Different CD players are trivial if not level matched, once level matched much harder. Cables, I have never been able to detect the difference between cables a factor of 179x difference in price, but when you look at the actual differences they are 100ths of db most of the time, so this is not surprising.

100 years of psychophysics research has established some reasonably reliable limits of human hearing.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nick, Why don't you try a simple test of a low grade interconnect like Radio Shack versus a really good cable such as Kimber KCAG or even Pear Audio Comice silver which is $200/meter? It's really a noticeable difference. I fear your tests did not have enough quality cable to represent what is possible since you stayed below $139. Also, you need to measure things like conductance, etc.

Are you volunteering to provide me with a loaner ?

I have been through this argument with others in my cable test thread, first it was "any Audioquest solid cable will be different enough" then it was "well I wouldn't call those Audioquest cables good" and then "you really need to spend $xxx for a decent cable" , no matter what level I tested at the complaint was the cables just were not good enough even though the point of comparison was a 77c unshielded throwaway...

Measuring conductance is not necessary as I measured Frequency and amplitude i.e audio characteristics, the conductance may affect these but its effect will be seen in the differences in the end measures, the ones we can hear, or not.

 

[dex85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's true that Harman and several other high end makers do conduct DBTs. Same for Audio Research.

i meant the cables manufacturers. do you know of any cable manufacturer who use DBT when designing cables?

 

[anetode]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I fear your tests did not have enough quality cable to represent what is possible since you stayed below $139.

Yes, it's possible to get ripped off for thousands of dollars instead of mere hundreds. I don't blame Nick Charles for not bothering to test that.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Measuring conductance is not necessary as I measured Frequency and amplitude i.e audio characteristics, the conductance may affect these but its effect will be seen in the differences in the end measures, the ones we can hear, or not.

I'm sorry I goofed. I meant capacitance. I've seen a correlation with that and sound quality.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry I goofed. I meant capacitance. I've seen a correlation with that and sound quality.

Measuring capacitance is not necessary as I measured Frequency and amplitude i.e audio characteristics, the capacitance may affect these but its effect will be seen in the differences in the end measures, the ones we can hear, or not.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradan /img/forum/go_quote.gif YouTube - Audio Myths Workshop Very interesting and informative video that allows some level of participation. I'm sure there will be contreversy, but I think it's a pretty eye-opening video.

Thank F@#$ing God! We're not all developmentally challenged.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's another one: Absolute rubbish. Anyone who has heard C-J gear with and without Teflon capacitors understands there is a significant sonic upgrade with Teflon caps. Better parts matter. Better design matters.

What are you talking about. Get off the science forum and go back to where you came from.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif What are you talking about. Get off the science forum and go back to where you came from.

**** you.

 

[aristos_achaion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif What are you talking about. Get off the science forum and go back to where you came from.

That's "sound science", not "sound nihilism". If accounting for inconvenient observation isn't part of your science, I'm afraid your sound science isn't very sound.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aristos_achaion /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's "sound science", not "sound nihilism". If accounting for inconvenient observation isn't part of your science, I'm afraid your sound science isn't very sound.

TwoTrack adds absolutely nothing to this forum with comments like that.

If those posting in the other forums are to be free of being harassed about DBT's, then this forum should be free of prostheletizing by the faith-based crowd.

se