[fishski13]

Quote:

Could you repeat the test but match the volume. Not doing so it a clear flaw. All you need to do is listen to each cable sighted and ensure you cannot pick out one from the other by the volume alone and adjust such so they are the same, remember where the volume control is each time and ensure you cannot see the volume control during each test.
 
The blind test you refer to is here 
 
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
 
 

i don't have any volume graduations around the volume knob and the amp had a potentiometer, not a SA.  i didn't pay any attention to the position of the knob either.  but yes, i am able to bring out some of the subtle flavors of each cable by cranking the volume up a skosh.  this is how a subjectivist would evaluate a cable.  i think adding this extra layer of protocol would be an impediment to my results and add stress, and this isn't how we interact with our gears when enjoying music.  my goal of the ABX was to create an environment a subjectivist would feel most comfortable with and try to keep the experience of listening to hi-fi intact as much as possible.  as i stated before, i don't think this ABX would stand up to the scrutiny of most here, but thought it might be interesting to question what is acceptable ABX protocol?  trust me, the next time someone claims that no one has ever differentiated cables in an unsighted ABX, i will be the last to chime in otherwise.
 
thanks for the Matrix link.  here's my take.  like i said before, i've owned the exact ATC speakers in the test for 6 years or so now.  they thrive on power, period.  throwing a wimpy 70W audiophile approved amp at these speakers is fail - they sound very sub-par.  if proposed with the question of which is the expensive and which is the cheap kit, assuming that the 300W specs are kosher, i would like to think i could pick out the differences, and possibly chose the cheaper Behringer as 'better sounding' as long as i had control of the volume remote.  i like to listen at 80-90dB+ with speakers.  needless to say my 30W Naim Audio and 40W Denon receiver were not up to the task.  is 70W enough, maybe, but i would doubt it?  my Adcom GFA-545 at 100W was decent but could get subjectively a little bright at higher volumes.  my 200W Krell KAV-400xi did sound subjectively more effortless without loosing dynamics.  all sighted of course.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Could you repeat the test but match the volume. Not doing so it a clear flaw.
 
Technically, yes but as long as the volume levels were not deliberately/accidentally changed between A and B in any pairing the chances of substantial overall output level differences for similar conventional cables with similar gauge wire is very low - however to rule this out you would need proper measurements and adjust by ear is not acurate or consistent enough.
 

 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Yes Nick is right and I should not have assumed a flaw. If you listen to your Cardas and other cables fishski, can you tell them apart by volume alone?

 

[Willakan]

The "big deal" is that you appear to have made some perfectly functional cables - sufficient gauge ect - which you could distinguish in blind conditions. What you claim to have accomplished, if the cables were confirmed to be essentially perfectly fine, would be nigh-revolutionary. Okay, I exaggerate, but any form of blind test that incorporate safeties to show the person can distinguish the cables, that have been passed successfully, are nigh non-existent.
 
However, this obviously has the giant caveat of the cables standing up to basic measurements.
 
Also, I do feel the need to leap to the defense of ABX

. The human memory for audio is pretty short - by switching very quickly even an untrained listener can hear differences. The idea of short snippets of audio and switching between them is meant to help the listener to distinguish differences, not the other way around. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Sorry Willakan, but what you say about audio memory is not born out by actual ABX tests. Of those conducted so far, going from short snippets, to whole tracks to being able to listen to your own kit over a period of a week, there is no correlation between ABX result and the time taken to listen.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Sorry Willakan, but what you say about audio memory is not born out by actual ABX tests. Of those conducted so far, going from short snippets, to whole tracks to being able to listen to your own kit over a period of a week, there is no correlation between ABX result and the time taken to listen.

Well obviously there wouldn't be any correlation if there weren't any actual differences to be detected, as with the majority of these sorts of things.

 

[fishski13]

Quote:

Yes Nick is right and I should not have assumed a flaw. If you listen to your Cardas and other cables fishski, can you tell them apart by volume alone?

kind of, it depends on the recording.  for example, i deliberately chose track 2 "Number One" from Manu Katche's album 'Neighbourhood'.  Jan Garbarek blows a sax that can get a bit too 'hot' (you could argue that he's always recorded hot) and depending on the cable and volume, it can sound more tolerable.  so sometimes yes.
 
being a former aspiring classical double bass player, i tend to focus on the bass in general.  i'm not sure if recording the double bass is difficult or not, but there seems to be a lot of recordings where the double bass is a bit boomy for my personal reference.  i prefer the K702 for this reason, but depending on the cable, it can sound fuller or more diffuse.  i also tend to focus on the note attack of bass tones as well and listen for 'appropriate' decay.  
 
i want to reiterate that i had to dissect these songs, 'looking' for subtle differences between the cables before subjecting myself to the ABX.  throw in a different song, whether or not i am familiar with it, and it would have thrown my results off.  i don't listen to music this way, but i had to do this if i was going to get anywhere near differentiating the cables in a statistically meaningful manner.  this also begs the question, why would you dissect the minutiae of music to hear differences if this isn't the way you listen to music.
 
 
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I still think that is worth pointing out, especially since one of the criticisms of ABX tests is that there is not enough time to hear a difference. That is usually put forward by golden eared audiophiles who like to think extended listening with their own systems will mean ABX tets can be passed.
 
EDIT - reply to Maverickronin post 105.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I still think that is worth pointing out, especially since one of the criticisms of ABX tests is that there is not enough time to hear a difference. That is usually put forward by golden eared audiophiles who like to think extended listening with their own systems will mean ABX tets can be passed.
 
EDIT - reply to Maverickronin post 105.

I get that some people say that.  I think it wrong, but if they want to handicap themselves in the test its their business.  I do think it obscures the truth somewhat because it doesn't use the most sensitive listening test available.
 
I've ABXed (from foobar) recordings from a Cowon S9 and a Clip+ due to the "pitch problem" with a perfect 15/15, but after retying with just the separate files and no aid from the plug in I was unsure if I could even hear the differences due to just the small delay of opening the files separately rather than having both loaded into RAM and ready to play instantly.

 

[fishski13]

Quote:

The "big deal" is that you appear to have made some perfectly functional cables - sufficient gauge ect - which you could distinguish in blind conditions. What you claim to have accomplished, if the cables were confirmed to be essentially perfectly fine, would be nigh-revolutionary. Okay, I exaggerate, but any form of blind test that incorporate safeties to show the person can distinguish the cables, that have been passed successfully, are nigh non-existent.
 
However, this obviously has the giant caveat of the cables standing up to basic measurements.
 
Also, I do feel the need to leap to the defense of ABX

. The human memory for audio is pretty short - by switching very quickly even an untrained listener can hear differences. The idea of short snippets of audio and switching between them is meant to help the listener to distinguish differences, not the other way around. 

i guess i came off a little coy rather than an off the cuff comment.  i don't think a cable subjectivist would be terribly surprised.  setting up an ABX takes some work and effort and i don't think the subjectivists really care enough to 'prove' anything.  they hear what they hear and they're ok with that.  besides, when you 'want to get closer to the music', it often entails buying a new cable to roll, tweaking the tone.  like i stated before, with my cables, the differences are not enough to sweat.  give me a $10K IC to play around with and i might think differently, but i have no concept of why a cable would make a 'night and day' difference, nor what engineering feats go into a cable of this price to change this significantly - LCR rules.   
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

i guess i came off a little coy rather than an off the cuff comment.  i don't think a cable subjectivist would be terribly surprised.  setting up an ABX takes some work and effort and i don't think the subjectivists really care enough to 'prove' anything.  they hear what they hear and they're ok with that.  besides, when you 'want to get closer to the music', it often entails buying a new cable to roll, tweaking the tone.  like i stated before, with my cables, the differences are not enough to sweat.  give me a $10K IC to play around with and i might think differently, but i have no concept of why a cable would make a 'night and day' difference, nor what engineering feats go into a cable of this price to change this significantly - LCR rules.   

The reason we're interested is that in order to properly conduct such a test it really helps to have a listener who already thinks they can hear a difference between cables.
 
People who don't think there is a difference will be subject to reverse placebo if not "blinded" from the fact that cables are being tested for audibility even if they are blinded from which cable they're listening to.  That can be done, but it also cuts down on the number of people who can be involved in the listening by eliminating the people who organize it from participating in the listening.
 
When you add to the fact that the "objectivists" are commonly said to have either tin-ears or a chip on their shoulder, accusations that we're bad subjects because we can't hear such subtle differences, will lie and say it all sounds the same no matter what, or commit other types of fraud aren't far off.  For such reasons it helps to have a listener who already thinks that there are differences to be heard.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

The reason we're interested is that in order to properly conduct such a test it really helps to have a listener who already thinks they can hear a difference between cables.
 
People who don't think there is a difference will be subject to reverse placebo if not "blinded" from the fact that cables are being tested for audibility even if they are blinded from which cable they're listening to.  That can be done, but it also cuts down on the number of people who can be involved in the listening by eliminating the people who organize it from participating in the listening.
 
When you add to the fact that the "objectivists" are commonly said to have either tin-ears or a chip on their shoulder, accusations that we're bad subjects because we can't hear such subtle differences, will lie and say it all sounds the same no matter what, or commit other types of fraud aren't far off.  For such reasons it helps to have a listener who already thinks that there are differences to be heard.

Lol, I am going to do it again! This test differentiates believer from sceptic and finds no difference in their performance!
 
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Lol, I am going to do it again! This test differentiates believer from sceptic and finds no difference in their performance!
 
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Yeah, but this time I'm mostly talking about criticisms that other people may have regardless of if they turn out to be valid or not.  Its most PR and framing...

 

[Parall3l]

I can't comment on the effects of expensive cables upgrades for your headphones simply because I have not tried before, but I am willing to bet on that an "audiophile grade" usb cable is completely snake oil because you can't improve 0s and 1s. 

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I don't know about expensive cables but I'm positive I hear some kind of difference by adding an extension cable I bought which is thick compared to using a typical very thin stereo cable those that would come with your mp3 player or portable amp. Using the thin short cable that came bundled with the amp it sounds a little more bright / thin while with the extension cable it sounds a little bit warmer (compare using a tube amp) and soundstage width is increased slightly. I'm certain it's not my imagination but the difference is still very small but I'm certain there's some difference. I didn't even think about listening for a difference when buying that cable, it's just it doesn't sound completely the same that struck me that it might have a little impact at least. I'm used to EQing and can be doing very small adjustments (this EQ I use allows 0.1 increments!) so I'm used to listen to very small differences in sound. We're perhaps talking about something along the lines of 0.5~1dB or so differences in the highs/mids in this case which unless you're trained to hear the differences or a perfectionist might be the same as nothing.