[ble0t]

Quote:

...quieter conductor.

Are you serious? You actually think you can hear the 'noise' generated by the slight imperfections in the crystal lattice and its vibration?

Also, wouldn't you think cryogenics international would have just a slight bias? Giving that as an 'objective' link is like linking to a study done by the tabacco industry on smoking...

 

[Jam_Master_J]

Quote:

Are you serious? You actually think you can hear the 'noise' generated by the slight imperfections in the crystal lattice and its vibration?

Of course. You can't?

(j/k of course)

 

[ble0t]

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ble0t Are you serious? You actually think you can hear the 'noise' generated by the slight imperfections in the crystal lattice and its vibration? Also, wouldn't you think cryogenics international would have just a slight bias? Giving that as an 'objective' link is like linking to a study done by the tabacco industry on smoking...

Well said.

I'm doing a bit of Googling on it. I don't have any solid facts, but here is an interesting forum debate with a few people who supposedly have researched it (read: I am not suggesting this as proof, only thought it was an interesting and thought provoking thread):
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...php/t-519.html

Here's some guy's article on various cable myths. Supposedly he's a "space robotics engineer" but the article is his opinion and doesn't have any sources cited. But an interesting read non the less:
http://white.hometheatertalk.com/cableclaims.htm

I also ran across some info on cryotreating CDs. What the hell? You can't expect dipping a CD in liquid N2 to produce better sound! It's a digital medium of information, just pits and valleys carved into some metal or plastic with a laser! This claim is even worse than the one idiot who claimed transferring MP3s from hard drive to hard drive dramatically altered sound quality. Also said different CD-Rs sounded different.

Thing is, you have to be very careful with what companies tell you. They're looking to make money and are not afraid to slightly skew the facts. All it takes is some clever wording to make you think they've done extensive research when in fact they have not. Take for example, the Enzyte commercials on TV with the "Smiling Bob" guy. You know, the ads that are very suggestive in saying that Enzyte will enlarge your penis. They do this by saying "Bob has a GREAT new level of confidence" etc. Anyone who doesn't live under a rock would tell you it's made to enlarge your penis. But it does nothing of the sort, and the ad didn't actually claim that it did at all. Of course cable manufacturers do usually outright say [insert BS] will dramatically alter sound quality, but it's just something to think about...marketing is a tricky thing.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ble0t Are you serious? You actually think you can hear the 'noise' generated by the slight imperfections in the crystal lattice and its vibration?

When they say "noise" in the circuit I believe they are referring to the distortion in the signal that can show up on the scope.

All I can tell you is things sounded better after being treated.
I tried it, it works.
That's it.

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd R When they say "noise" in the circuit I believe they are referring to the distortion in the signal that can show up on the scope. All I can tell you is things sounded better after being treated. I tried it, it works. That's it.

You "believe"? Isn't that a bit wishy washy for someone making such big claims? And you say they can show up on the scope. Where are said results? From somewhere OTHER than a company selling cryo treated cables? I mean, if you were to outright say that you have no scientific data and simply believe it improves sound quality, I may think you're an audiofool but I'll still respect your opinion. It just seems that you came off earlier like "here's all this scientific data!" and now you're not even sure what the "noise" is?

Hah, I just realized your avatar is of Smiling Bob. Oh, that's rich.

 

[Nixie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon I also ran across some info on cryotreating CDs. What the hell? You can't expect dipping a CD in liquid N2 to produce better sound! It's a digital medium of information, just pits and valleys carved into some metal or plastic with a laser! This claim is even worse than the one idiot who claimed transferring MP3s from hard drive to hard drive dramatically altered sound quality. Also said different CD-Rs sounded different.

Well, I never thought I'd be on this side, but it's time to bust the skeptic for once!

The MP3 thing is BS indeed, but the difference between various CDs with the same digital data is real, and is well established in the industry. Just a little thing called jitter. While the data is digital, due to the fact that you are converting to analog, there is timing information being used here, and that's subject to analog degradation. This is why digital cables between source and DAC do matter, as use of non-RF suitable ICs (coaxial, BNC connectors, matched impedances on both sides) increases jitter. Jitter is taken very seriously by CD player manufacturers, as many early CD players had really bad jitter that was clearly audible to just about anybody. During production of CDs jitter is also minded. I remember reading of a case where Sony had significant complaints about the sound quality of some CDs they produced, and the problem was traced to jitter introduced in the mastering process. The fact is, there is analog timing information being derived from the actual precision of the positioning of the pits on the CD surface, and despite attenuation by FIFO buffers, and more recently, asynchronous sample rate conversion, it can still be an issue. In a lot of cases, burning a CD-R can produce a CD with lower intrinsic jitter than the one you bought at the store. Of course, it's only during the digital-to-analog conversion step that jitter comes into play, so copying MP3 doesn't do anything as those are operations in the digital domain only.

Look here: http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter1_e.html
There was a better article somewhere, but I can't find the site right now.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon You "believe"? Isn't that a bit wishy washy for someone making such big claims? And you say they can show up on the scope. Where are said results? From somewhere OTHER than a company selling cryo treated cables? I mean, if you were to outright say that you have no scientific data and simply believe it improves sound quality, I may think you're an audiofool but I'll still respect your opinion. It just seems that you came off earlier like "here's all this scientific data!" and now you're not even sure what the "noise" is? Hah, I just realized your avatar is of Smiling Bob. Oh, that's rich.

I said "I believe" because I didn't write the article.
I am only making an assumption about what they were trying to convey from what I read.
You want to know exactly what they meant? Give them a call, maybe they can explain it better.

[size=x-small]My[/size] statement to you and everyone else is this:
I have tried it.
I found it beneficial.

You haven't tried it.
You assume it won't work.

Simple as that.

If you are needing scientific proof on every little thing that goes on in the audio world before you try something, knock yourself out, I don't have time for it. I would rather listen to see if it's valid.

Now just so you don't think I'm a hopeless tweekaholic, there have been things I've tried that didn't work in my system.

Rainbow Foil.
Optrix CD tratment.
AudioPrism CD Blacklight mat, to name a few

These just didn't work for me at all.
Now if someone else gets good results from one of these products, goodie for them, but I will not come here and jump up and down saying that these products cannot work because of blah, blah, blah......

Everybody has different systems, hearing, and different levels of experience. I happen to have been involved in stereo equipment and sound for about 29 years now. In that time I've heard lots of systems, spent lots of money, played with lots of cables, footer, tweaks, room treatments, you name it.....and spent COUNTLESS hours listening.
So when I tell you guys something works, you can be pretty sure I'm not just blowing smoke and I really mean it.
No, I don't always know all the science behind it, and don't always particularly give a crap ether.

The point is this fellers,
Music is enjoyable and fun, and a great stress reliever.
When the hair on your neck to stands up, you get goosbumps on your arms, a big stupid smile on your face, and a foot that won't stop tapping, you've done it right. No kind of test equipment other than the ones on the side of your head can measure that!


BTW, I have Bob as my avatar because the commercials crack me up. I would never use Enzyte, my blood pressure is already too high.

 

[Nixie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd R I happen to have been involved in stereo equipment and sound for about 29 years now. In that time I've heard lots of systems, spent lots of money, played with lots of cables, footer, tweaks, room treatments, you name it.....and spent COUNTLESS hours listening.

That's all irrelevant.
Quote:

So when I tell you guys something works, you can be pretty sure I'm not just blowing smoke and I really mean it.

No doubt you believe you hear a difference. That doesn't mean you actually do. Psychological bias is extremely powerful in coloring our perceptions. Now, if you can detect the difference when you don't know whether it's been switched, it is then that you can know you are hearing it, rather than it being, as is in most cases, psychological bias. Often people are shocked, or get angry and defensive, when they fail to detect the difference in a blind test -- that's how much they believed they could hear it.
Quote:

No, I don't always know all the science behind it, and don't always particularly give a crap ether.

You don't need to know the science. That's why the only valid tests of audible difference are carefully controlled blind listening tests. Everything else, from non-blind tests on one side, to distortion analyzing equipment on the other, is meaningless.
Quote:

Music is enjoyable and fun ... No kind of test equipment other than the ones on the side of your head can measure that!

Exactly! And the only way you can be sure that it's really your ears doing the measurement is to eliminate any possible source of bias -- and psychological bias is the biggest one of them all. The fact is, we do not control our minds, as much as we would like to. Despite the best of intentions, you simply cannot eliminate your psychological bias by will. It is absolutely impossible.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie That's all irrelevant.

Experience irrelevant? That's ridiculous.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie You don't need to know the science. That's why the only valid tests of audible difference are carefully controlled blind listening tests. Everything else, from non-blind tests on one side, to distortion analyzing equipment on the other, is meaningless. Exactly! And the only way you can be sure that it's really your ears doing the measurement is to eliminate any possible source of bias -- and psychological bias is the biggest one of them all. The fact is, we do not control our minds, as much as we would like to. Despite the best of intentions, you simply cannot eliminate your psychological bias by will. It is absolutely impossible.

As you may know much has been written about the flaws of blind testing.
Here's a recent one:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hifi200...onkrueger.html
In particular paragraphs 5 & 6.

Everything from an unfamiliar system, unfamiliar music, poor system quality that masked differences, to the pressures of being under a test have all been cited as why blind testing is not a reliable test either.

I believe the only REAL way to do a test is with your own system, with your own tunes, and at your own pace. Under those conditions I'd take you up on your blind test, but......

It would be nearly impossible to do at home.
In order to make it a blind test you say I can't know that something is under test, right?
You'd have to sneak into my house some night, change something and then wait for me to call you when I notice?

It's really not practical is it?

I'll take you up on it if you insist however.
Key is under the mat, watch out for the dog

TR

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd R Everything from an unfamiliar system, unfamiliar music, poor system quality that masked differences, to the pressures of being under a test have all been cited as why blind testing is not a reliable test either.

So do a blind ABX at your own rate on your own system. Have someone else swap the cables. Or better yet, use an AB switch and have someone swap the cables while you're blind folded, and then you flip the switch back and forth and see if you can tell the difference.

And unfamiliarity with a system and the music doesn't matter that much. If cables and such made as huge a difference as you claim, there should be no problem telling cables apart. Especially if ears are oh so precise as you seem to claim. And if test pressure is an issue, take it slow, have the person repeat the test at a later time, etc. There are many ways to solve those problems. Saying otherwise is just another excuse to ignore objective testing for subjective, pyschologically biased testing, the only place where fancy expensive cables are different.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon So do a blind ABX at your own rate on your own system. Have someone else swap the cables.

No Problem,
I've done it before and I'm willing to do it again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon And unfamiliarity with a system and the music doesn't matter that much. If cables and such made as huge a difference as you claim, there should be no problem telling cables apart. Especially if ears are oh so precise as you seem to claim. And if test pressure is an issue, take it slow, have the person repeat the test at a later time, etc. There are many ways to solve those problems. Saying otherwise is just another excuse to ignore objective testing for subjective, pyschologically biased testing, the only place where fancy expensive cables are different.

Unfamiliarity with a system and the music does make a difference, you're wrong there. It's kind of like if you came over once and looked around the house. By the next time you were over, the Wife had rearranged the pictures on the wall.
Would you notice? Maybe.
Would I notice? Definitely.
Why?
Because I see it everyday, I'm familiar with it.

In any case I'll do your test if you're willing to come over and swap things around, you're not that far away. Bring your Radio Shack cables and a blindfold.

TR

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd R Unfamiliarity with a system and the music does make a difference, you're wrong there. It's kind of like if you came over once and looked around the house. By the next time you were over, the Wife had rearranged the pictures on the wall.

That analogy would work if the A sample were listened to on Monday and the B sample listened to on Friday. In a blind ABX test you're switching back and forth with a switch. At least, you should be, because that's the best way to do it.

 

[Nixie]

Actually you are both somewhat right. Let me explain:
Auditory memory is very short, so quick switching is needed. HOWEVER, it is plausible that differences that are below the threshold of consciousness can only be noticed as existing after very long periods of listening. In other words, both are needed. Note that this still can be done 'blind'. Jon Risch, who is one of the few reasonable people at AudioAsylum, had a detailed proposal and discussion on these issues there, that aimed to satisfy both sides. It's worth looking up (sorry, I do not have a direct link, use the search).
The issue of masking is also real. There is indeed masking by all components in the signal path, and it is likely that a multitude subthreshold changes can add up to an audible difference. For example, perhaps changing the source to a one somewhat better, or the amp to a one somewhat better, may not result in a positive result, but changing both will (of course, one cannot stress enough the control, so that 'all things being equal' holds).

BTW, I didn't say experience doesn't matter at all, but that it's not the deciding factor here. Experience is simply not a substitute for evidence. Arguments and theories are judged on the logic and experimental evidence, not on who wrote them or how experienced he was. Moreover, experience does not at all make one immune from psychological bias.

Finally, there's very significant masking by the ear and auditory neural circuits themselves. This is critical because this masking shows that different types of distortion are masked to varying effects, making metrics such as THD and IMD useless in general. This is why some types of distortion, while large in magnitude, can sound far less offensive than other types that may have much smaller magnitude.

Consider the case of video codecs. The institutions that develop them may use synthetic measurements as a guide to avoid gross artifacts, but in the end testing of perception by actual human subjects, in controlled double blind testing, is the deciding factor -- for obvious reasons. With significant modifications, such as to accomodate for the potential long term effect mentioned above, we can indeed trace which things really make a difference, and thus need the most attention of research and futher improvement.

 

[Emon]

Well said man.