Cable directionality & cables

Well, if I were going to be very pedantic I could point out that the title you gave to this thread is "Cable directionality and cables"

Michael.

 

All right then, if you've spoken to him at length why not tell us about how he decides whether a speaker is functioning to his liking (or the liking of other people)?

Does he for instance use test instruments and an anechoic chamber? Perhaps he just measures his speakers, and knows that they sound good, and therefore neither he, nor anyone else, needs to listen to them... That would be completely compatible with what Floyd Toole (head of R&D at Harman) has been publishing in the AES.

Billy Woodman, stopped fiddling with subjective testing using music sometime ago -even admitted in it the press (Widescreen Review) - now ATC speaker design is done with measurements.

 

Thats the problem nowadays, too much measurements, too little listening, hifi is made for the subjectivist pretenders, who dont ever listen to music, just read specs and tests...

I will stick with my Electra Amator IIs, thanks... :MILD:

 

In my view it's impossible to design a loudspeaker without using measurements and it's impossible to design a good loudspeaker using only measurements.

Having heard some of Greg Timbers' top JBLs, I would be shocked if they hadn't been designed using both measurement and ears.

As for ATC, if you're saying that Billy Woodman doesn't use his ears when he designs a speaker, then I'd say he's lost the plot big time (unless nothing significant has changed since the last time he designed with listening).

I'll give an example specifically related to loudspeakers. The frequency response curve of a drive unit might be flat +/- 5dB. The changes in response by using different materials for the cabinet (eg. MDF v Birch-Ply) are generally of an altogether more subtle nature and can't be easily detected fom the measurements alone because they're dwarfed by the relatively wide fluctuations of the drive-units. This doesn't mean that the cabinet differences are inaudible but it does mean that you have to listen.

 

Interesting discussion there. For the record. I always suggest DBT should rename as the Art of Critical Listening. Just to underline the fact that all activity concerning this hobby boils down to reproducing REAL audible improvements.

If you imply there are people trying to do this already have they ever publish their negative findings? Where? How many have failed? Are they famous goldenears? It seem researchs with negative results are unreported because they are not interesting and don't sale magazines.

 

Well then, I guess you'll also be shocked to hear that speakers that measure well, corellate well with listener preference in properly conducted DBT's.

Again, Floyd Toole has a test rig which rotates the speaker in space - they take 72 anechoic measurements in the vertical and horizontal plane and then they know how the speaker radiates sound. They then put that into a computer model of the room and have a damn good idea of what the repsonse is like at the listening chair.

In blind tests people prefer smooth, flat frequency response.

Putting that another way, the meaure the speaker and know whether people will like it or not - in other words you could be deaf and design a speaker that people will like. Moreover, our deaf speaker designer won't end up building a hearing aid for himself. (see below).

Why should he "use his ears"? Are his ears (or yours) a representative sample of the target population, or is he (or you) merely building a prosthesis for his own hearing defficieny?

Again, coming back to the work by Toole, in his double blind testing, people with frequency related hearing loss had the most polarised opinions on what speakers sounded good and bad, and that these unfortunate folks would tend to choose speakers which mitigated their loss.

What does your audiogram look like?

Maybe you just aren't taking enough measurements...

 

Not shocked at all actually. Nor do I disagree with the statement.

The reason I'm not surprised is because this research finding has been quoted all over the place, ad infinitum, for many years.

Frankly, it's well past time that this experiment was dusted down, improved and repeated. Still, it's not the only example where the industry pins its 'knowledge' on a single experiment done once. That's science I guess.

 

I am sorry to say, but this is the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, doesnt everybody expect a tipical "sound" from each brand...

It is also typical from the so called objectivists that, as a matter of fact, cannot tell the difference between a fart and a musical note...

 

As the question mentions 'my ears', I will give a response.

I use my ears in the design of my speakers.

I'm not interested in a 'representative sample of the target population'. It's Seventh Veil Loudspeakers not Bose.

Yes, I'm interested in building speakers for myself and those who share my taste in speakers or, if you prefer, those who share my hearing deficiencies.

 

I am surprised that any of the speaker manufacturers who rely solely on measurements actually bother to release new products. Surely they could just use the flat frequency response designs they had 30 years ago and be done with it. After all, speakers with a flat frequency response all sound the same anyway, right?

 

You'll find that in most recording studios worth their salt all machinery is in a machine room away from the control room. The mixing desk is the only piece of kit in the control room, and nowadays most of those are virtual anyway.
Therefore isolation only really needs to be a large rack next door.

And as an ex-physical chemist I find cable directionality in what is effectively a plain bit of copper or silver wire to be a jolly jape to extract a few more pennies from gullible audiophiles - also adds to that mystique to keep non-hifi folk out..

 

This is the thing I just don't get. Has anyone ever chosen a cable BECAUSE it's supposedly directional?

Claiming directionality (and I have only ever heard the effect once and am not convinced) doesn't seem to me to help sales in any way. So why suggest it unless the manufacturer truly believes it to be the case. In which instance, where's the harm in that

 

merlin, I agree with you mainly (that no one would choose a cable for it's directionality) but the fact that it's marked as such probably adds to the credibility of the whole cable in the first place. "If they even know which direction it should be used in they really must know what they're talking about" type of thing.

It may add some value.

Michael.

 

Bloody hell. Is this forum overrun by chemists, or what?

 

Well so far, there's :-

Me
Tones
Lilolee
PeteH
Leonard
GrahamN (I have seen some organic chemistry text books at his house, anyway)

Anyone else?

 

...yes (although probably far fewer than IT types) but not many of us are now actually doing any chemistry. AFAIK the list is:

PeteH - yes
Robbo - yes
Leonard Smalls - no
LiloLee - no
Tones - not really
GrahamN - not really

Clearly chemistry is a great training for a life of culture and distinction.

Ah - Robbo's hangover is clearly not slowing him down!!!!

 

Depends how you define "chemist", I guess. I do it every day, not in the sense of fiddling in a lab but in the sense of fiddling along with people who fiddle in the lab. I am still applying chemical knowledge on a daily basis, and that makes me a chemist (sort of), doesn't it?? And, as the old slogan has it, and it clearly applies to hi-fi too - "chemists have solutions".

 

Mind control

Exactly what I am driving at. In itself, it seems a fairly innocous concept - you've got to connect them one way or the other, and it doesn't cost you money to do it. But you have accepted a deeply bogus concept by doing this.

It's the thin end of the wedge. They are controlling your thoughts....Soon, you'll start to believe that two virtually identical-sounding CD players are, in fact, radically different. You'll start thinking that you have fantastic hearing, like the people on the Naim side, and watch your bank account emptying.....

 

Hmmm....like Margaret Thatcher (who was a chemist).

Michael.

 

Re: Mind control

My post about Mana at PFM said pretty much the same thing

Michael.