Testing audiophile claims and myths

[gregorio]

Maybe your last paragraph is getting to the crux of the matter, and with respect you and Bigshot rarely if ever listen with small earphones and so are taking your views from much more solid performing gear which behaves more predictably.

I can’t speak for Bigshot but I listen to IEMs pretty much every day. At work I listen to speakers nearly all the time, occasionally to HPs and very rarely to IEMs but at home I use them often and quite often when I’m travelling. My first paragraph would seem to be “getting to the crux of the matter” as you seem to be “trusting your ears” to tell you what’s actually happening in reality, rather than to just tell you about perception/preferences, on the basis that “you feel you know them well”.

I've now been using the new cable a few days and haven't yet heard the abrasiveness I did before with the supplied (bundled) cable.

That should be a good clue that “your ears” are not telling you the reality of what’s occurring, because “abrasiveness” is not an audio property, it’s a perception. There’s only two options; either “you ears” (perception) is simply creating a perceived difference where there is none, due to some bias or, “your ears”/perception are picking up on some real difference, a difference in say frequency response which they’re misinterpreting as a difference in “abrasiveness”. Either way, “your ears”/perception are not telling you the truth of what’s actually occurring!

G

 

[bigshot]

“abrasiveness” is not an audio property, it’s a perception.

That is why I said his listening was unfocused. He doesn't appear to listen carefully to the aspects that determine fidelity to analyze what makes up the sound... He forms overall impressions that are conclusions based on how he feels about what he hears.

If someone isn't interested in thinking logically and analytically, there's no point pointing out perceptual errors to them, because the error is part and parcel of what they hear. That's why I recommend a glass of wine and a soft couch. That will improve their impression of the sound much more than any sort of incremental increase in fidelity will.

 

[Ryokan]

That should be a good clue that “your ears” are not telling you the reality of what’s occurring, because “abrasiveness” is not an audio property, it’s a perception.

Abrasive, brittle, thin, piercing, edginess, sharp all different terms I've used to try and explain I can't listen with these for long, even with the best fitting tips. It's been that way for over a year and was ready to give up on them a few times, before changing cable and have mostly been using these since - they no longer make me wince.

I wish I'd swopped the cable sooner but was sure there would be no difference, especially after asking here several months ago. The one that came with the earphones is expensive and it's now going to sit in a drawer.

 

[KinGensai]

That should be a good clue that “your ears” are not telling you the reality of what’s occurring, because “abrasiveness” is not an audio property, it’s a perception. There’s only two options; either “you ears” (perception) is simply creating a perceived difference where there is none, due to some bias or, “your ears”/perception are picking up on some real difference, a difference in say frequency response which they’re misinterpreting as a difference in “abrasiveness”. Either way, “your ears”/perception are not telling you the truth of what’s actually occurring!

Hold on a sec, I don't follow how both instances in this hypothetical resolve into perception not telling the truth in at least a partial capacity.

The possibility of bias related error is straightforward, but if the perception of "abrasiveness" can then the substantiated by referencing a FR reading that indicates a change in the related frequencies, then the perception has in fact denoted a truth about the sense data in question. It would be reasonable to argue that such perceptions are unreliable especially if said perceptions are being used for the sole basis of describing a sound's characteristics to others, but an absolute denial seems to me to be an erroneous conclusion based on the second outcome.

Just as an aside, abrasiveness is a common description of the 4k to 8k region which, as I'm sure you are well aware as an audio engineer, is responsible for upper harmonics of the human voice, which our physiologies are naturally selected over time to be very sensitive to for preservation of life in emergencies. Overly elevated response in this region causes spikes in adrenaline and cortisol, which is not pleasant as the body tenses up and blood pressure spikes. It's no wonder that word is used to me because it encapsulates an experience that is very common in humans, an adverse reaction to a woman or baby screaming.

That is why I said his listening was unfocused. He doesn't appear to listen carefully to the aspects that determine fidelity to analyze what makes up the sound... He forms overall impressions that are conclusions based on how he feels about what he hears.

If someone isn't interested in thinking logically and analytically, there's no point pointing out perceptual errors to them, because the error is part and parcel of what they hear. That's why I recommend a glass of wine and a soft couch. That will improve their impression of the sound much more than any sort of incremental increase in fidelity will.

You know, it might be helpful to describe how to conduct a focused listening session. People without exposure to audio engineering in any context won't have a clue what you mean.

A trick that helped me was using letter sounds to index particular frequency ranges. Uu for 250Hz, oo for 500Hz, aa for 1k, eh for 2k, ee for 4k, sss for 8k, etc.

 

[KinGensai]

Abrasive, brittle, thin, piercing, edginess, sharp all different terms I've used to try and explain I can't listen with these for long, even with the best fitting tips. It's been that way for over a year and was ready to give up on them a few times, before changing cable and have mostly been using these since - they no longer make me wince.

My question is this. What is your objective? What argument are you trying to make or counter with all this? Obviously anecdotal accounts will not be sufficient here, so let's figure out what your argument is and make sure you understand the opposition's stance.

Speaking for myself, I believe based on the preponderance of the available evidence that cables can make an audible difference. I just don't think the cables in this context do because there is not enough of a physical difference (length, gauge, material, soldering, etc) to make a substantive impact on their own. I think that, if there are noticable differences that can be corroborated by measurements, there must be another factor causing it.

 

[Ryokan]

My question is this. What is your objective? What argument are you trying to make or counter with all this? Obviously anecdotal accounts will not be sufficient here, so let's figure out what your argument is and make sure you understand the opposition's stance.

Speaking for myself, I believe based on the preponderance of the available evidence that cables can make an audible difference. I just don't think the cables in this context do because there is not enough of a physical difference (length, gauge, material, soldering, etc) to make a substantive impact on their own. I think that, if there are noticable differences that can be corroborated by measurements, there must be another factor causing it.

Yes I've said all along I can't prove anything and know feelings are arbitrary. I'm just pleased I am now enjoying these earphones after a year of huge disappointment. So until I can provide test results my experience isn't proof of anything.

 

[bigshot]

Files download on the Internet smoother when I’m happy.

 

[KinGensai]

Yes I've said all along I can't prove anything and know feelings are arbitrary. I'm just pleased I am now enjoying these earphones after a year of huge disappointment. So until I can provide test results my experience isn't proof of anything.

Well, unless my google-fu is lacking, no one has measured these cables you have in particular. This talk will go in circles without measurements. Can you measure the resistance of each cable?

https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/oriolus-mellianus.php?otl=1#gsc.tab=0

Here's some relevant measurements on the Mellianus.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, unless my google-fu is lacking, no one has measured these cables you have in particular. This talk will go in circles without measurements. Can you measure the resistance of each cable?

https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/oriolus-mellianus.php?otl=1#gsc.tab=0

Here's some relevant measurements on the Mellianus.

I've attempted it using a multimeter but it's difficult getting a stable reading, I'll get some clips and try again.
I was looking at buying a purpose built headphone/iem tester but reading on another science forum others say it isn't brilliant plus I don't really want to spend $300 on something I'll only use occasionally.

 

[KinGensai]

If I'm reading the graphs right, the first one on RAA shows a read on multiple amps with varying impedance. Those show a change that I think correlate with what you say, but I'm not sure what they mean when they write "TEST AMP 0Ω" vs "TEST AMP 20Ω", maybe @VNandor can help?

Also interesting read from RAA

All audiophiles know that if the system plays poorly, you need to change the cable, preferably with some special one: multi-core, mono-core, silver, copper of sky-high purity, from the dump deposits, stubborn from the defense industry, etc..

In no case is it subjected I doubt the assertion that the material and other features of the cable affect the sound. But, against the background of banal resistance, which affects the frequency response and the level of penetration of channels, everything else affects to a lesser extent.

What is an audiophile cable usually like from most masters?

I don’t know a single master who would deny the importance of symmetry between channels and would not strive to avoid unnecessary soldering joints. And accordingly, in such cables there is no such horror when at first three cables come from the plug, then they are divided into four. There will always be four wires coming from the jack at once.

If the headphones have a single-sided wire, then such headphones are almost always converted into symmetrical ones.

And what do we get in practice? Headphones with a stock cable with a large mix of channels are taken and compared with a new audiophile one. With an audiophile cable the sound is different! What's the conclusion? Got better. And why? Yes, because: multi-core, mono-core, silver, copper of exorbitant purity, from dump deposits, stubborn from the defense industry ... and any price tag is justified due to the material or the exclusive conductor.

The second point is that cables change the sound in nuances, and in blind testing this difference is extremely difficult to confirm. It’s a bit like with shoes: when you try them on, everything is fine, but within a week, some shoes rub your feet, while others don’t.

What's going on in the audiophile world? The components are listened to, opinions are summarized and patterns are derived: copper sounds like this, silver sounds like this, solid core sounds like this, etc.. Logical and not so logical explanations are selected for everything. But at the same time, the question remains open: what was “far-fetched”, and where could the substitution occur from the effect of a simple electrical change of cable to the material and properties of the conductor? There is no answer to this and there never will be.

It makes sense that before you go to all the trouble of changing a cable, you should first evaluate the cable for channel penetration and find out how the sound should change with a properly designed cable. Perhaps such an upgrade will be as cheap and effective as possible. And the materials and other properties of the conductor should be listened to and changed later, when the comparison will take place strictly among equivalent cables according to the electrical circuit. Or maybe your source is initially mixed, and replacing the cable is a complete waste of time and money?

 

[bigshot]

Discussion of differences between cables without measurements and how the differences measured relate to the thresholds of perception is pointless.

There are differences between cables, but if you’re using the correct cable, those differences are inaudible.

 

[KinGensai]

Discussion of differences between cables without measurements and how the differences measured relate to the thresholds of perception is pointless.

There are differences between cables, but if you’re using the correct cable, those differences are inaudible.

Just so we're clear, the threshold you are talking about here is? I regard 0.5dB as almost imperceptibly different and 1dB as detectable with margin for error. You probably mentioned it somewhere. IIRC gregorio said 0.7dB is the threshold

 

[bigshot]

It depends on what it is that’s being changed… Level? Frequency response? Timing error? Distortion? Dynamics? The differences described are all impressions of what feeling the sound evokes in the listener. The actual differences haven’t been defined. Analytical listening should provide a clue about what is being altered and which wire is doing the altering. It’s entirely possible that the one he likes is the one performing out of spec, and the one he doesn’t is perfect fidelity. That’s the problem with building a controlled test on a vague impression. If we knew more, we’d know where to look.

The first thing I’d do is a level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison with multiple trials averaged. That would answer the first question: is there an audible difference? Then you can move on to pinning down what is measuring the same and what is measuring different. Then you can compare that measurement to the established JDD for that aspect of sound fidelity and see what it is causing the difference.

 

[VNandor]

If I'm reading the graphs right, the first one on RAA shows a read on multiple amps with varying impedance. Those show a change that I think correlate with what you say, but I'm not sure what they mean when they write "TEST AMP 0Ω" vs "TEST AMP 20Ω", maybe @VNandor can help?

I think you're reading the graph correctly. The test amp 0ohms vs test amp 20ohms vs test amp 0ohms plus the downward pointing arrow are the 3 different amps the FR measurements were taken with. The dotted lines are supposed to show the amp's output impedance and the value can be read from the left Y axis. The plotted impedances seem suspiciously linear, I don't think these are the actual measured output impedances of the used amps, rather it's just the value of what it's "supposed to be". The straight downward slope (corresponding to TEST AMP 20ohms + the downward arrow) from 20ohms down to below 0.25ohms especially does not make sense IMO.

 

[gregorio]

Hold on a sec, I don't follow how both instances in this hypothetical resolve into perception not telling the truth in at least a partial capacity.

The possibility of bias related error is straightforward, but if the perception of "abrasiveness" can then the substantiated by referencing a FR reading that indicates a change in the related frequencies, then the perception has in fact denoted a truth about the sense data in question. … Just as an aside, abrasiveness is a common description of the 4k to 8k region which, as I'm sure you are well aware as an audio engineer, is responsible for upper harmonics of the human voice …

But that’s the problem or rather, the two problems: 1. Can the “abrasiveness“ be referenced by a FR reading? You state ”abrasiveness” commonly refers to the 4-8kHz region but what potential property of a cable could affect specifically that region? For example, given certain conditions, say an impedance mismatch along with too small a gauge, a cable could roll-off the HF and potentially affect freqs even as far down as into the mid freq region but that would affect the whole region above where the freq roll-off starts, for example 4k to 22kHz and the greatest loss would be in the HF, the loss would not be limited to only 8kHz. And 2. Are you sure “abrasiveness” refers to FR, maybe just a lightly lower volume could result in the perception of less “abrasiveness” or maybe a difference in transient response or phase, although it’s hard to see how correctly functioning cables would cause either of these.

Even in the rare example above (too small a cable gauge) of an actual audible difference, still “perception is not telling the truth” because the result would not be limited to the 4-8kHz region. In practice of course, pretty much every time an audiophile makes claims about audible FR differences caused by cables, typically using perceptual descriptions such as “brightness”, “harshness”, etc., the actual FR reading/measurement does not substantiate their claims.

A trick that helped me was using letter sounds to index particular frequency ranges. Uu for 250Hz, oo for 500Hz, aa for 1k, eh for 2k, ee for 4k, sss for 8k, etc.

I’m not quite sure how that trick helped, those ranges are not correct. “Sss” is a broadband sound made by the human voice, usually starting somewhere below 2kHz and extending to 10-12kHz (although it can vary considerably). Vowel type sounds are much lower, the highest voice is the female Soprano, which typically extends no higher than “top A” in choral music (~880Hz) or “top C” in operatic music (~1046Hz) and even the highest note on a piccolo flute isn’t as high as 4kHz. Men’s voices are of course much lower than women’s, the famous tenor “top C” is an octave lower than the soprano’s (so around 500Hz) and most of the time people making those sounds aren’t straining at the top of their vocal range, so generally All those sounds will be lower than 500Hz (or a lot lower). There are many online resources for listening skills training or free audio software containing a signal generator if you just want to learn what different freqs sound like.

G