[oicdn]

Would a switch box with a bunch of the interconnect cables plugged in to jacks be much easier? Make the switch as minimalist as possible so as theres no "the signal path is degraded beyond the point where the differences can be told apart" garbage.

All things being equal (the signal path going through a switch for each individual IC), one SHOULD be able to "tell the difference" between cables right? This alleviates any need to unplug and replug in cables, and you can do an EFFECTIVE back to back comparison and switch it within the same song and get a realistic back to back on the same recording and cut testing time dramatically as well as see if people can really tell what is what. Heck, even put the same cables in different jacks and see if the person BSs you by saying "cable 1 sounds different from cable 3".

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would a switch box with a bunch of the interconnect cables plugged in to jacks be much easier? Make the switch as minimalist as possible so as theres no "the signal path is degraded beyond the point where the differences can be told apart" garbage. All things being equal (the signal path going through a switch for each individual IC), one SHOULD be able to "tell the difference" between cables right? This alleviates any need to unplug and replug in cables, and you can do an EFFECTIVE back to back comparison and switch it within the same song and get a realistic back to back on the same recording and cut testing time dramatically as well as see if people can really tell what is what. Heck, even put the same cables in different jacks and see if the person BSs you by saying "cable 1 sounds different from cable 3".

Right on 'bro! Especially the part about using the same cable to fool the subject ... very important part of the testing.

I would love the box, but people will object to it no matter how minimial. I think we have to switch cables in the back room, and use the Grado (or other high end) long HP extension cable to the blind listener.

16/44.1 vs 24/96 would be the first test I want to do, since that was covered by A/B/X and the pro engineers last year, and dismissed as no difference.

 

[wavoman]

Everyone knows, right, that the M&M paper concludes with a statement like: Commercial SACDs and DVD-A's even in 2-channel mode often sound much better than the redbook versions of the same recording. !!!

They just believe it is due to superior mastering and care by the recording engineer, not the higher sampling rate or bit depth.

But the practical conclusion is the same for many of us: SACD and DVD-A playback is important. The authors of the paper can rip them for PC storage at 16/44.1 if they want, I'm going to rip them at 24/88.2 and 24/96 respectively. 'Cause I can hear the difference ... well, I am going to prove that in a few months I hope. [These rips are still down-sampled ... for the most critical listening it's back to the physical disk].

If you don't rip SACDs or DVD-A's (and it is painful to assemble the gear to do this, for sure), at least enjoy the music and listen to these discs (not down-sampled), don't miss out on this because you think high resolution does not matter. Maybe it doesn't, but these discs just sound better. SACD-Man and the NJ meet opened my eyes, and I have been digging into this area ever since.

 

[LnxPrgr3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would love the box, but people will object to it no matter how minimial.

That's always confused me -- there are already so many pieces in the system that aren't made of audiophile grade cabling. The voice coils in the headphones are one example -- I'd think these would have more of an impact than an extra switch in the path.

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LnxPrgr3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's always confused me -- there are already so many pieces in the system that aren't made of audiophile grade cabling. The voice coils in the headphones are one example -- I'd think these would have more of an impact than an extra switch in the path.

Dunno ... I have personally heard cheap Rat Shack switchboxes hurt SQ ... or at least I thought so ... could be the placebo effect in reverse!

 

[freckling]

a shame kool bubba ice hasn't replied to clutz's post or to the subsequent posts in this tread

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dunno ... I have personally heard cheap Rat Shack switchboxes hurt SQ ... or at least I thought so ... could be the placebo effect in reverse!

This would be quite easy to test. Take the line-out from the switch box or component and record a track in Audacity (or similar) then analyse the waveforms if there is significant signal loss the numbers will show it. A poor connection may create audible signal loss , that rather than a few feet of extra wire I would suggest - I use a Niles Audio switch box which does not appear to audibly degrade the signal, I have never felt sufficiently moved to test this emprically though, maybe one day when I am really bored...and of course there will be a measurable signal loss

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This would be quite easy to test. Take the line-out from the switch box or component and record a track in Audacity ... Niles ... I have never felt sufficiently moved to test this emprically though, maybe one day when I am really bored...and of course there will be a measurable signal loss

It would be great if you did test this (I know I am not going to get to it any day soon). If you need to be really bored, go read some of my posts on A/B/X, that should do the trick.

Yea Niles is good, I use them too. I have been thinking about the TCC TC-716 from Phonopreamps.com Home Page for my next swithbox ... anyone know these guys?

 

[Arainach]

While I haven't tried their switchboxes, I use their TC-750LC preamp and love it. In terms of the company, they seem to be legit - no scamming when I've dealt with them (I've placed 2 separate orders - for a preamp and a phono pickup), stuff shipped out fast and seemed of good quality.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yea Niles is good, I use them too. I have been thinking about the TCC TC-716 from Phonopreamps.com Home Page for my next swithbox ... anyone know these guys?

I use the TC-716 for my office system with my old Nikko Amp. It works but the design (6 independent push buttons) allows some channel bleed if you inadvertently leave more than two buttons in. If used correctly it is fine.

I have used it to do sighted rapid A/B switching between ipod headpone/line-out. If you set up two sources in adjacent inputs you can switch between them very quickly with two fingers. Also you can have both in circuit simultaneously and alternatively switch either one in or out, this can tell you which has a higher level.

I have owned several switch boxes and I would place this one 2nd behind the Niles and rather better than most cheapo boxes.

And as the chap above says - service is first class.

 

[Omega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am reading all the posts and threads are made on this sub-forum, now the bigger question is, why do we think about science when: "Reality is merely our perception of the world around us." -synaesthetic And other comments on some of us suggest that 'experience/perception >>> science.' Like one member on my other thread suggests us to just come to some mini-meets and just listen to change our opinions. There is little space for science on audiophile area. The claim is plain simple: "forget the science and just listen." But here is one problem for such claim. Without science, the whole audio thing is just impossible to exist. All the laws of physics, which usually debunk all of unscientific claims, are also ones make ALL of audio equipments possible to exist. The recording, transducer and amplification -three most biggest concepts in audio, are just pure science. Vacuum tubes and transistors are coming from science; without the knowledge of thermo physics and electronics, tubes do not exist at the first time. Do we need to remind ourselves that the first patent for a transistor is made by a physicist? As you see, the main core of audio and listening is based on science. Without science, all of our listening experience and pleasure would not exist at all. Transformers? science. Electronics? science. Waves? science. With the knowledge from science, we understand concepts and build speakers and amplifiers based on science. I think too many people forget this fact. Now, my question is, how can we possibly ignore science on audio field when the very basic core of audio itself is made of pure science? How can we talk about a thing without mentioning and applying the core of the thing?

I just wanted to get back to the OP's question, and address something important to the discussions in this thread. What is science? Science is a process developed by humans, for deciphering the rules of the universe, based on our observations. It is an iteratively refined process of hypothesis-test-revised hypothesis. An essential characteristic of good science is repeatability. Science never PROVES anything, but it is a very good tool for piling contrary evidence against incorrect perceptions.

I am a scientist, and am so often confounded by the fact that my peers, popular misconception, and even my mother, keep missing the point entirely.

There is MUCH space for science in the audiophile arena, just like there is space for science in psychology, neuroscience and physics. Sure, audio perception is influenced by human preference. Everyone has prejudices. That just means one has to construct less obvious hypotheses, and then construct clever experiments to test the underlying phenomena.

 

[asher7323]

I think science can explain every stage of the audiophile process.

It is the basis for all the gear, and when it comes to the physical audio gear, our scientific understanding is complete.

Science can also explain why some people have subjective preferences for one sound over another. To the person who said science can't explain what makes someone attractive to you, I'd rethink that statement.

Our understanding of preferences and how sound waves are appealing to certain people will only increase as we further understand exactly how the human brain works. As compared to what we know about the audio equipment, what we know about the human brain is back somewhere in the Bronze Age. Just because it can't be fully explained (It can surely be partially explained, with some very expensive brain scans and long interrogation) at the moment, it does not mean that it will always be the case.

As our knowledge of the human brain grows, we will someday reach a point where we are able to scientifically measure preference to music in an inexpensive setting.

But since we know everything about the equipment and comparatively little about the human brain, we should focus on what we CAN do, which is to measure the scientific differences in the equipment and wait for knowledge of human physiology to catch up.

To those who are totally discounting the application of science in the enjoyment of audio, you are forgetting that science is only a tool as powerful as our knowledge on the subject.

Don't confuse a failure to fully understand the working of the human brain with a failure in science.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asher7323 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think science can explain every stage of the audiophile process. It is the basis for all the gear, and when it comes to the physical audio gear, our scientific understanding is complete. Science can also explain why some people have subjective preferences for one sound over another. To the person who said science can't explain what makes someone attractive to you, I'd rethink that statement. Our understanding of preferences and how sound waves are appealing to certain people will only increase as we further understand exactly how the human brain works. As compared to what we know about the audio equipment, what we know about the human brain is back somewhere in the Bronze Age. Just because it can't be fully explained (It can surely be partially explained, with some very expensive brain scans and long interrogation) at the moment, it does not mean that it will always be the case. As our knowledge of the human brain grows, we will someday reach a point where we are able to scientifically measure preference to music in an inexpensive setting. But since we know everything about the equipment and comparatively little about the human brain, we should focus on what we CAN do, which is to measure the scientific differences in the equipment and wait for knowledge of human physiology to catch up. To those who are totally discounting the application of science in the enjoyment of audio, you are forgetting that science is only a tool as powerful as our knowledge on the subject. Don't confuse a failure to fully understand the working of the human brain with a failure in science.

Science is in no way, not even remotely, able to do what you think.

 

[dvessel]

I think it's called "pulling yourself up from your own boot straps." As in, you can't pull yourself up when there's nothing to pull from but yourself.

Science can predict our behaviors to a degree but it'll never be close to 100%.

 

[Omega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Science is in no way, not even remotely, able to do what you think.

For the sake of argument, I can assert:
"Science is, in every way, able to do what he thinks."
and I am just as convincing as you on this point!

I'm not just trying to be a PITA, but again referencing the fact that the main weapon of science is data. To convince me (or any other good science-minded soul), you'll have to wield some data and wrap a good hypothesis around it.