Cable Theory

[Orb]

That's correct (I think it is a bit less than .2db though). Sorry about the bad colors there. Didn't catch the visibility issue with blue trace until after I post it .

What test should we do? A single tone that changes back and forth 0.2db?

You could use that piano recording Gary provided and take several of the notes that equate to the FR you want and repeat them.
I think its important because you really want all aspects of a tone from attack attack-decay-sustain-release IMO that a steady state tone will not provide.

BTW I just thought of this, ideally you should also measure both channels/stereo as there is a slight chance you will find differences there, the affect would be interesting IMO even for both frequency and time domain.

As Gary mentions, I feel part of this might revolve around phase-to-FR-specific sound trait; for me this would possibly fit in with my own experience of some recordings about a false sound caused with echo/hall effect on some recordings and the Chord Cable I used.

Cheers
Orb

 

[garylkoh]

Fantastic. It is rare to see this from a 'cable guy', no offense intended.

Boy, hope you guys can get a well done thing happening!

No offense taken. I'm not a 'cable guy' and initially resisted my dealers asking me to provide them my cables because I didn't want to be a 'cable guy'.

I'll have to find the time to design and build the switcher, then the first thing to do is to identify the "sonic signature" of the switcher, because I just cannot bring myself to believe that such a switcher can be transparent enough to compare high-end cables. This can easily be done with two pairs of identical cables.

Once we've done that, we need to locate a neutral, high resolution system to conduct the test, and find some guinea pigs

 

[c1ferrari]

Sam,
Try Mogami Gold Stage - at the expense of a little "body", you get gobs more micro-dynamics, tonal colors and nuances.

Really?? I had a couple of cool conversations with Phil...I think he reps Mogami for Marshall -- he advised I try the AES/EBU cable. Have you tried that cable, Gary? I'll give Gold Stage a go.

 

[garylkoh]

Really?? I had a couple of cool conversations with Phil...I think he reps Mogami for Marshall -- he advised I try the AES/EBU cable. Have you tried that cable, Gary? I'll give Gold Stage a go.

Yes, I have used the AES/EBU cable for short analog runs. There are other cables I prefer for short runs, but for long runs the Gold Stage is fabulous for the pennies.

 

[The Smokester]

...I'll have to find the time to design and build the switcher...

One possible way to go is for the switcher to have three states: One for each cable and a middle state where both cables are connected in parallel. When switching between the two cables (the cable states) the switch would pass momentarily through the parallel state. Thus, the amplifier could be left powered on since it would always see an almost constant load during the switch and it is possible there would be no audible click as a clue that a switch had been made (if that is important).

...then the first thing to do is to identify the "sonic signature" of the switcher, because I just cannot bring myself to believe that such a switcher can be transparent enough to compare high-end cables. This can easily be done with two pairs of identical cables.

There is always the issue that something becomes different when you make the switch from the identical cables to the real test configuration...Like the impedance of one of the connections changed slightly because you forgot to use gloves . Or something. So, seemingly identical configurations will need to be swapped and the tests repeated. Repeatedly.

Also, presumably certain music or test sounds will reveal differents more readily than others. Since we don't have a theory that distinguishes cables then identifying and classifying these sounds would be most interesting.

It would be nice if the switching equipment could be reliably and assuredly designed to interface with a music server which could also accumulate data automatically. Then, the system could be loaned out and deployed at listeners' home systems to be used at the subjects' leisure (a common criticism being the amount of time and stress to the subject of a DBT which biases the results).

Okay. There are some concepts. When can we expect some results?

 

[The Smokester]

...It has been done before...But so what? ...

Because there is not yet a good explanation (in this thread) which supports all the evidence.

If you have a reference, please don't hold back.

 

[FrantzM]

Because there is not yet a good explanation (in this thread) which supports all the evidence.

If you have a reference, please don't hold back.

What "evidence" are we talking about here?

 

[The Smokester]

What "evidence" are we talking about here?

Frantz, The main evidence that has not been satisfactorily explained is that credible people report that they hear a difference.

 

[Speedskater]

Seldom do people (credible or not) present credible evidence that they hear differences. When asked to repeat the demonstration, it never happens.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, The main evidence that has not been satisfactorily explained is that credible people report that they hear a difference.

The problem seems that some refuse to admit that our hearing can be fooled... For some reasons we accept it in the case of our vision .. But we hold hard to our ears being the "ultimate" measuring instruments... Why is it that when knowledge is removed it becomes so difficult to reliably perceive such "differences"? People consistently fail such tests. That seems more of an "evidence" than recollections that can be tainted by so many things our brains can fabricate.. When it is clear that no one can perceive 0.1 dB reliably, how can we continue to debate so hard about such minutes often less than 0.1 dB of difference? ... One must wonder..
I come from the side of cables made "huge" differences.. I know now that when knowledge is removed, things take a very different aspect.. I would suggest to my fellow WBF members to subject themselves to a knowledge-removed experience at least once ... Just one warning! This can be humbling..

P.S.All this of course suppose adequately built cables which we already know how to make ...

 

[Steve williams]

Frantz

I do agree with you

What fascinates me is that some individuals such as Gary L Koh here says he can pick cables out 100% of the time. Makes me wonder about how the rest of us hear

 

[The Smokester]

The problem seems that some refuse to admit that our hearing can be fooled... For some reasons we accept it in the case of our vision .. But we hold hard to our ears being the "ultimate" measuring instruments... Why is it that when knowledge is removed it becomes so difficult to reliably perceive such "differences"? People consistently fail such tests. That seems more of an "evidence" than recollections that can be tainted by so many things our brains can fabricate.. When it is clear that no one can perceive 0.1 dB reliably, how can we continue to debate so hard about such minutes often less than 0.1 dB of difference? ... One must wonder..
I come from the side of cables made "huge" differences.. I know now that when knowledge is removed, things take a very different aspect.. I would suggest to my fellow WBF members to subject themselves to a knowledge-removed experience at least once ... Just one warning! This can be humbling..

P.S.All this of course suppose adequately built cables which we already know how to make ...

Frantz

I do agree with you

What fascinates me is that some individuals such as Gary L Koh here says he can pick cables out 100% of the time. Makes me wonder about how the rest of us hear

And I agree with you both.

Steve, you give a specific example of what I am suggesting. Informally, I have observed that some individuals can identify different equipment unfailingly in circumstance where no others can.

Several years ago there was a giant thread on AVSForum between Steve (formerly known as obgyn)and MikeL with a big bet on whether one or the other of them could tell differences in cables. I thought there was the real possibility that some actual demos would be done that would shed some light on this phenomenon but to my knowledge it never came to pass (or did it?).

I seems there is even more expertise on this (WBF) forum now that might actually be able (and willing?) to credibly address this.

 

[Steve williams]

For the record I was never debating Mikel on the issue but offered to moderate the DBT itself but IIRC Chris Wiggles was the tester. I never bet anything on the test either

 

[The Smokester]

For the record I was never debating Mikel on the issue but offered to moderate the DBT itself but IIRC Chris Wiggles was the tester. I never bet anything on the test either

OK. I just remember there was a bet somehow involved. I don't see how it is important to this anyway so shouldn't have brought it up.

The point is that we now to have top-flight hi-fi equipment, experts in doing these kinds of experiments and the technical knowhow, too. Is anyone interested in trying again?

 

[amirm]

There has been some discussions offline about testing speaker cables blind. That said, I don't want to position it as epic battles to prove one side or the other wrong. We are just trying to have fun with it and not as a serious scientific endeavor. If it happens, it would be some time in December but if we run into holidays, then January.

 

[FrantzM]

There has been some discussions offline about testing speaker cables blind. That said, I don't want to position it as epic battles to prove one side or the other wrong. We are just trying to have fun with it and not as a serious scientific endeavor. If it happens, it would be some time in December but if we run into holidays, then January.

Well ... that's the spirit! By all means soldier on ...

 

[c1ferrari]

There has been some discussions offline about testing speaker cables blind. That said, I don't want to position it as epic battles to prove one side or the other wrong. We are just trying to have fun with it and not as a serious scientific endeavor. If it happens, it would be some time in December but if we run into holidays, then January.

That sounds (pun intentional) terrific!

 

[The Smokester]

Tom,
Thank you so much for the reference. It really is right at the level I was looking for. I have only skimmed it through once so far, and it will take me a few days before I get the time to really understand it, but I still have a few questions.

One is: What about Dielectric Absorption? Just as this is an important phenomenon in capacitors, it might also be in cables.
Two: This article points out that it is the imaginary component of the cable impedance which is important since it is that component which will reinforce the impedance of the speaker which is commonly mostly imaginary as well. Particularly, I imagine the voice coils are largely inductive (is that true?). So I speculate that it is the change in the imaginary component of voltage across the voice coils (as opposed to the speaker terminals) that will effect the changes that one might hear. In a three-way speaker there are (at least) three coils to worry about and the effect will be different for each, perhaps, but probably mostly effecting the tweeter(?). Has anyone calculated the changes in voltage voice coil-by-coil?

Please don't make me have to do this myself (very painful to watch me do arithmetic).

Again, I thank you for sharing these valuable insights.

Best,
John

 

[Ethan Winer]

The problem seems that some refuse to admit that our hearing can be fooled ... Why is it that when knowledge is removed it becomes so difficult to reliably perceive such "differences"? People consistently fail such tests.

I came across this gem recently:

The McGurk Effect

This is a great example that proves seeing can bias hearing.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

I came across this gem recently:

The McGurk Effect

This is a great example that proves seeing can bias hearing.

--Ethan

Can you teach me how to read my speakers lips?