In article , John Phillips
wrote:


I haven't calculated the intermodulation from a 0.1 parts per billion
modulation of cable inductance but my engineering feel is that it's
about three-fifths of bugger all.

In signal/comms terms that would be around -1dBFA.

(The max level will be 0dBFSD, given a measurement dynamic range of XdB you
define 0dBFA to be = XdBFSD. :-) )

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 , Glenn Richards
wrote:
Eiron wrote:

There are many ways to measure the difference between cables

Indeed there are.

The biggest difference between religion and science is this:

Science: "We don't know the answer to that yet."


"... but for the idea to make sense we'd have to obtain some evidence via
a suitable test." :-)

Combined with, "We already have a fair amount of evidence, and ideas that
are supported by the evidence."

Religion: "God works in mysterious ways" / "We aren't supposed to
understand that" or some other bull****.

Now, clearly there is a difference, otherwise there wouldn't be a multi
million industry surrounding cables.

s/"clearly"/"clearly some people believe or accept when told that"/

[snip]

And the problem with the snake oil vendors is exactly what's happening
in this group on a regular basis. The "bull**** detector" threshold gets
lowered because of all the snake oil vendors, with the result that
several babies end up getting thrown out with the bathwater.

I would have said the main reason on this group was that people keep
asserting they can hear a difference, but then refuse to engage in a test
whose outcome would have the ability to either support or falsify their
assertions.

The trick is to be able to distinguish what really does make an
improvement and what doesn't.

For me, the "trick" would be for someone to actually engage in a suitable
test and show some evidence that their belief has any foundation in
physical reality. :-)

[snip]

At the end of the day, it's your decision, if you want to stick with
trash freebie patch cables and bell wire for your speakers then that's
up to you. It's your ears that will have to suffer for it.

Can't speak for anyone else, but my experience is that I have repeatedly
tried different types of cables. I've done this on various occasions over
20+ years, with varied equipment, etc.

Despite using fairly basic cable types I can't find any signs of my ears
having to "suffer for it". I just find I am thoroughly enjoying the music,
and hearing the details of the sounds.

The only advice I can give to anyone regarding cables is "try it, if you
hear a difference *AND* you think that difference is worth the money,
buy it, otherwise don't".

but there is no way to get Glenn to try any of them.

My ears don't lie. And having now done several blind tests, both as the
subject and the person doing the testing, I don't need to waste any more
time to just reinforce what I already know.

Alas, the 'test' you described a while ago on this ng would not have been
particularly useful. A 'blind' test to be meaningful has to do more than
simply be 'blind'...

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 , Tony Gartshore
wrote:
In article ,
says...
My ears don't lie. And having now done several blind tests, both as
the subject and the person doing the testing, I don't need to waste
any more time to just reinforce what I already know.

Amen.

The question then becomes, "So why waste time (repeatedly) making
assertions which you know people will tend to reject *because you refuse to
engage in a test that might have the ability to indicate if your beliefs
are founded in physical reality?*"

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 , Serge Auckland
wrote:


What bothers me about the subjectivist PoV is that they cant propose a
single mechanism for cables sounding different, just that they do.

Actually, they do occasionally propose 'mechanisms' (e.g 'skin effect'
which was trendy for a while). They also sometimes come up with some
'measurements'. (An example being the claim a few years ago of 'current
dependent phase effects' which I examine on the 'Analog and Audio' section
of the Scots Guide.)

Alas, careful examination tends to show that the 'effects' are virtually
'nil' in practice, and the measurements may simply me erronious...

FWIW I've been investigating this for years in the *hope* that there is
something to it! I'd love to find an interesting feature in the physics or
enigneering which I can then understand. Alas, the snark seems to be a
boojum thus far... :-)

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 , Menno
wrote:
I agree with Glenn. Just because we don't know how to measure what we
hear doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree. However nor does it mean that it *does* "exist" in physical
reality. What it means is that we have an assertion or speculation which
may or may not be well founded in reality.

[snip]

If you want to measure audible differences in cables, you probably need
to build something that mimics the interpretation of sounds in our
brain.

I'd suggest that "step one" would be some evidence that the claimed
difference *is* actually audible. Otherwise, trying to measure something
that may simply not exist would be rather a waste of time.


After all, the human brain can make a distinction between the
sound of cable A and cable B.

The above seems to omit a qualifier like "if" at some point... :-)

[snip]

How about amplifiers. Are there audible differences between amplifiers?
If you agree there are, how does/would a good amplifier measure
differenent from a not so good amplifier. There's probably a number of
differences that you can measure but what makes one sound more pleasant
(for you) than the other? Less distortion, more distortion? More even
harmonics? That 1 dB more or less at the high or low end of the
spectrum? A more constant group delay?

it is quite easy to measure various 'differences' between amplifiers (and
cables), and these will depend on the amps or cables chosen. However these
may only matter *if* the two units actually sound different.

The problem is that when people do tests that rely only on the sounds, they
often find they can't reliably tell one unit from the other. Hence the
measured differences may not matter in such cases.

Alas, the evidence we have is that people have repeatedly claimed they
could hear differences, but when tested were unable to show they could do
so. Hence their beliefs are not a reliably guide to the reality.

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

"Menno" wrote in message
...
I agree with Glenn. Just because we don't know how to measure what we hear
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But you don't need to see it as a
mysterious
act of God either. There's enough trouble due to religion already. :-)

Well, seems I got you guys going. That's good. I've tried to point out
some
items that could explain the difference in the sound of cables. I don't
pretend that I have the answer though. Some people claim that the
influence
of the effects I listed are inaudible. Maybe that's the case or maybe they
underestimate our hearing. In capacitors, the dielectric makes a
difference.
Some people love paper in oil, others like polypropyleen better. Most
agree
that ceramic is not great for audio. So why should't the dielectric make a
difference in cables? Likely more in interlinks than speaker cables.

Actually, capacitors don't have a sound either. That too is a myth.

If you want to measure audible differences in cables, you probably need to
build something that mimics the interpretation of sounds in our brain.
After
all, the human brain can make a distinction between the sound of cable A
and
cable B. The difference is subtle so you'll have to search for differences
at a
low level. How low should we go? I don't know. For that you'll need to
search through studies on our hearing on what's still audible and what
not.

How about the following; you have a CD and you turn it into an MP3. Can
you
hear the difference and if so, describe the difference? Can you measure
the
difference? I've never tried to measured this so maybe I'm digging my own
grave with this example. :-) Maybe the OP can spent some time on this.

This of course depends on the data rate- 128kbps is audible on much
programme material, 320kbps is inaudible on all programme material.

However, if you measure MP3 using sine waves, you get perfect measurements,
low noise, distortion, wide frequency response, at even low data rates. Use
a gliding tone, and you get all sorts of anomalies. This shows the
importance of understanding the measurements, what they mean, and how to
carry them out.

How about amplifiers. Are there audible differences between amplifiers? If
you agree there are, how does/would a good amplifier measure differenent
from a not so good amplifier. There's probably a number of differences
that
you can measure but what makes one sound more pleasant (for you) than the
other? Less
distortion, more distortion? More even harmonics? That 1 dB more or less
at
the high or low end of the spectrum? A more constant group delay?

There are audible differences between "good" amplifiers, those that measure
low distortion, wide and even frequency response, low noise, low output
impedance and "poor" amplifiers, those that are deficient in one or more of
the above. However, if you take two "good" amplifiers, whose performance
limitations are below the threshold for audibility (0.1% THD, noise -90dB,
+-1dB 20-20kHz, 0.5ohm output impedance, and you will find that they sound
identical whatever technology, valve or SS up to their clipping point.


Unfortunately I don't have the equipment at my disposal to do measurements
on cables, either at home or at work. One idea is to sample the input and
output of the cable while sending white noise or even music through the
cable. Then calculate the correlation between input and output. This is
not
my field of expertise so maybe I'm completely off with this.

I don't use expensive cables. I'm too cheap for that. :-) But at one point
I
found that a certain (RF) coax sounded better than the OFC neoprene cable
that I used at the time. So I changed cable and it didn't cost me much.
The
Siltech was way out of my budget then. Now I could afford it but still
don't
buy it. There's a limit on what I want to spent on a cable. I have more
hobbies, a wife and a life. :-)

Bottom line; more questions than answers. Use your common sense; if you
don't hear the difference between cable A and B. Stick to what you have.
If
you like one better that the other and you think it's worth the money, go
for it.

Menno

If I had the experience of liking one cable more than another, I would want
to find out why. If there isn't a reason, then I would tend to doubt my
experience, as you can't buck the numbers!

S.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?

May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?




d

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

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:52 +0200, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?

If it is a stand alone question, it is even stupider. Have a little
think for yourself, and consider whether there might perhaps be more
to it. Consider, for example, why there were ever tone controls.

d

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