Serge Auckland wrote:

I don't think that there should be any difference between coax and
optical, as the data is the same. If there *is* a verifiable
difference, then I would suggest a very poor design of receiver in
the DAC, as it's really not an issue with properly designed
equipment.

Yup, after all, it's only ones and zeros, as the old saying goes.

The theory is that using Toslink introduces jitter, as the signal has to
be converted to optical then back to electrical (so introduces two
stages of conversion). The error correction in the DAC then has to work
harder to eliminate the jitter. Although a simple shift register to
re-clock the signal should get around this.

Also not sure why making the error correction work harder should affect
the sound you get out of the analogue outs. Perhaps the processing power
used to correct the errors causes spikes or sags on the power supply -
which would suggest that the power supplies in most CD players are
sub-standard. (Having seen the inside of a Technics SL-PG590 I'd be
inclined to agree.)

As far as my hearing goes... I did a sweep test with a sine wave
oscillator a few months back to find the top end cut-off of what I
could actually hear. I could still just hear something at 22.5kHz,
but above that nothing.
This *is* exceptional. May I ask how old you are, as I would not
expect a response above 20k for anyone much past the mid twenties.In
my youth I too could hear a bit above 20-21k, but not now.

28 a couple of months back. I did a similar test when I was about 15,
and I could hear all the way up to 23kHz. Lost about 0.5kHz since then
it would appear.

One thing's for sure, the 15kHz whine of a CRT-based TV set has always
irritated me beyond endurance (at least when there's no sync input and
it whistles, not a problem when it's actually displaying a picture).

My last g/f also couldn't hear any difference between her £99 Aiwa
midi system and £4,000 worth of separates.
Do you remember that Linn ad from the '80s which suggested that a
girl with a Linn was a better prospect than the one without? Caused a
bit of a stink with the PC brigade.

Oh yes. They were still running them in the early 90s I think.

Depends what the girl without has instead. Personally I prefer the sound
of Arcam to Linn, but there you go.

Where abouts are you based? If it was possible to get a few of us
together, of every persuasion (audio that is!) and try some blind
testing, perhaps HFN could be interested in sponsoring the tests.
Jim, if you're reading this, do you have any sway with the editor? It
may help to allay fears that HFN like all the other mags is only
interested in pleasing the advertisers.

I'm about 15 miles north of Bristol. I'm in the process of moving house
at the moment, so it would have to wait until that was all done with,
but I'd certainly be up for that once I'm all moved and set up. Staying
in the same town fortunately, so still 15 miles north of Bristol!

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Thus spake Don Pearce:
There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I would prefer any proctor to be "neutral" rather than "sceptic" personally.
Why do people seem to think that all interested parties have already made up
their minds?

Surely any test has to be trusted by both the proctor & subjects? I, for one
have grown to harbour reservations regarding DB testing's efficacy on
anything other than drug therapy effectiveness. My suspicions are that the
results will never show any significant scores because the differences are
possibly just too subtle to be picked out by memory alone which is of course
a great pity. How would you propose calibrating the test to gain some idea
of thresholds where subjects can hear calibrated & repeatable differences in
sound apart from suggesting these tests are for those subjects who declare
the differences between cables to be huge (unless I've got the wrong end of
the stick?)

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test, would
that invalidate my preference?

As for coming up with something better, I'm sorry to say that I can't. I'm
not even certain that this little nut is indeed crackable. I would dearly
love it to be. This page gives some idea why:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:48:51 -0000, Roy roy wrote:



"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Roy wrote:

That doesn't make sense. You're suggesting there is a difference
between a "no cost" cable and a £15 one, but no difference between a
£15 and a £100 one. So just where is this cut off point. You need to
do more experiments before presenting your conclusion.

No, I didn't say there was no difference, I said the difference wouldn't
be worthwhile.

So cables DO sound different?

Sure. If you compare a cable that works to one that is garbage.

A lot of audiophile cables fall in the later category. It's not easy
making a cable that can barely handle audio frequencies and which muffle
higher audio frequencies giving that much sought after "warm" sound.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 01:25:46 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:
There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I would prefer any proctor to be "neutral" rather than "sceptic" personally.
Why do people seem to think that all interested parties have already made up
their minds?

If you think about what kind of information the proctor and observer
might convey subliminally, you will appreciate that my choices are
there for a reason. It is important that a proctor understands what is
going on in the test, and anyone who does is very likely to have an
opinion of his own - hence the choice of bias.

Surely any test has to be trusted by both the proctor & subjects? I, for one
have grown to harbour reservations regarding DB testing's efficacy on
anything other than drug therapy effectiveness. My suspicions are that the
results will never show any significant scores because the differences are
possibly just too subtle to be picked out by memory alone which is of course
a great pity. How would you propose calibrating the test to gain some idea
of thresholds where subjects can hear calibrated & repeatable differences in
sound apart from suggesting these tests are for those subjects who declare
the differences between cables to be huge (unless I've got the wrong end of
the stick?)

No calibration is necessary because my test is only for subjects who
makes claims of ability to hear differences easily, and in the case of
the two who so far have expressed some sort of willingness, have
claimed to hear differences in blind testing. Given that the test
would be conducted at their home, using their gear and records, you
can see that sensitivity calibration would be superfluous.

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test, would
that invalidate my preference?

I'd be very surprised if you did fail - I'd put it down to your having
a cold, or somesuch.

As for coming up with something better, I'm sorry to say that I can't. I'm
not even certain that this little nut is indeed crackable. I would dearly
love it to be. This page gives some idea why:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm


Even without reading the page I agree. No matter how many people
claim, try and fail, there will always be another.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
[snip]

Where abouts are you based? If it was possible to get a few of us
together, of every persuasion (audio that is!) and try some blind
testing, perhaps HFN could be interested in sponsoring the tests. Jim,
if you're reading this, do you have any sway with the editor? It may
help to allay fears that HFN like all the other mags is only interested
in pleasing the advertisers.

Alas, I have no "sway" with any editors. :-)

The current editor of HFN is relatively new-in-post. However the general
approach of the mag in recent years is that such tests are a waste of time
as they all "know" the differences exist.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Paul B
wrote:


Surely any test has to be trusted by both the proctor & subjects? I, for
one have grown to harbour reservations regarding DB testing's efficacy
on anything other than drug therapy effectiveness. My suspicions are
that the results will never show any significant scores because the
differences are possibly just too subtle to be picked out by memory
alone which is of course a great pity.

That may be so. However it contradicts any assertion that the 'differences'
are 'large' or 'obvious' or any similar term. It also implies the
'differences' are so small as to be of little significance or interest.


How would you propose calibrating the test to gain some idea of
thresholds where subjects can hear calibrated & repeatable differences
in sound apart from suggesting these tests are for those subjects who
declare the differences between cables to be huge (unless I've got the
wrong end of the stick?)

Where the form or cause of the 'difference' is defined, such tests may be
done. For example, there have been tests to determine the levels of
distortion of various kinds that people can easily hear, or find on the
borderline of being undetectable.

The problem with many of the claims re 'cable sound' is that not only they
claimed differences seem to become elusive when tested. It is also that
there is no testable physical cause or mechanism which anyone has been able
to substantiate.

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test,
would that invalidate my preference?

No. But it would indicate that your preference may not be based on the
actual taste...

As for coming up with something better, I'm sorry to say that I can't.
I'm not even certain that this little nut is indeed crackable. I would
dearly love it to be. This page gives some idea why:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm

I'll have a look. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In ,
Don Pearce typed:

Even without reading the page I agree. No matter how many people
claim, try and fail, there will always be another.


Don,

Why not take all of the points made in this thread and repeat the tests with
a series of improved double blind, randomised protocols that some have
suggested ? I haven't got any agenda or preconceptions at all, since I'm
very much a newbie but looking to buy some cables soon and so I would be
interested in your results.

Jo

Thus spake Don Pearce:
Snipped
No calibration is necessary because my test is only for subjects who
makes claims of ability to hear differences easily, and in the case of
the two who so far have expressed some sort of willingness, have
claimed to hear differences in blind testing. Given that the test
would be conducted at their home, using their gear and records, you
can see that sensitivity calibration would be superfluous.

This protocol would be useless for me then - as someone who couldn't hear
the differences between interconnects. As for speaker cables, I thought I
had in the past & as for equipment itself, I would be truly amazed to say
the least, if it were proved that essentially most sounded the same. I admit
that I would expect to fail many DB tests. As I've stated before, I not
heard any appreciable differences between equipment until sometimes months
later with specific passages of music.

I suppose if I ever get really desperate for money, I could purchase a cable
cooker & start up a mail-order business. Desperation can remove inconvenient
morals.

Thus spake Jo:
Why not take all of the points made in this thread and repeat the
tests with a series of improved double blind, randomised protocols
that some have suggested ? I haven't got any agenda or preconceptions
at all, since I'm very much a newbie but looking to buy some cables
soon and so I would be interested in your results.

I thought that was what Don's protocol was suggesting. I don't think he's
interested in proctoring the tests himself & has clarified that the protocol
is only really for those who state the differences are stark rather than
subtle.

I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee "patch
cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find & spend any
change on buying some MUSIC!

In article ,
Paul B wrote:
I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee
"patch cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find &
spend any change on buying some MUSIC!

You're assuming all 'supplied' cables are to the same 'quality'? Judging
by my collection they certainly don't come from the same factory. And why
would the supplier of a good quality separate ruin its performance by
supplying an inferior cable with it? Or do you think the prices charged
for these 'aftermarket' ones reflect the cost of making them?

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.