LCR and cables

I would agree that you can accummulate sessions.

I've done some playing with PCABX, 16 is tedious. It is however interesting to listen to level changes, bandwidth differences, distortion etc.

Paul

 

I was a believer but now am cured. All it took was some simple long term blind testing to realise I was kidding myself. Others should be encouraged to try it for their own benefit IMO. Obviously cable "manufacturers" will most likely disagree

 

i think there'sa thread that might need your attention Mic.

i must say i'm surprised you haven't posted already..

 

I have, but it's rather tedious.

I'll wait for publication by a reputable source and verification by peers before I stop trusting proven science and my ears.

 

Those who don't believe in Santa Claus don't become Claus believers... Those who believe in Santa Claus do become Claus Skeptics...

 

Hi,

The ABX/DBT as proof of no audible difference crowd would disagree. I wonder why?

Rest assured, 8 trials is tedious. I did this as part of a challenge on a on-line (german) discussion board.

I provided a set of three eac ripped wav files, which the challenger burned to CDR as originals and MP3 reconverted versions and snail mailed to me (8 trials in total per track).

When I declared that NON of the files matched my original reference (recordings) CD's but ranked them in order of preference the challenger unilaterally declared a victory.

(as in "he [that is me] cannot tell the original")

I had tested using a Pioneer DV-505 DVD Player (Audiocom Superclocked) into a Philips LHH-1000 DAC (read Marantz DA-12 - the DAC part of the CD-12 Combo) fully restored and rebuild, using latest high quality components and op-amps but not changing the fundamental circuit and design.

I subsequently tested said CD on a CD-Player capable of HDCD decoding (I should note that all tracks where from HDCD encoded CD's and that HDCD encoding survives neither Sample Rate Conversion nor MP3 and back conversion) and found several interesting things:

1) Tracks that "the challenger" identified in his posts as original, which I had rated lowest in sound quality failed to light the HDCD Light, thus confirming digital manipulation.

2) Tracks I had rated "closest to my CD's" did turn on the HDCD Light. The "challenger" had insisted these where actually low rate MP3's converted back.

So, this DBT was first of all one I actually passed (I did rate the bit identical tracks as best in sound quality) and secondly, it illustrated (to me) that even a CD Player that reads the CD asyncronously (with a massive ram buffer - in fact that particular DVD Player treated the CD as DVD and was working in DATA MODE extraction into RAM) seems to show, for some reason a reliable difference between an original pressing and a CDR.

Past that, it illustrated to me that "debunkers" are, if called upon, quite willing to use outright fraud to suppress evidence they find inconvenient.

In the case of the particular discussion board the "challenger" was also moderator, resulting in me being banned, after having called his bluff and further having all posts in which I exposed the fraud deleted, while the earlier discussions where retained.

Talk about "chinese democracy".

Anyway, bottom line, good testing limits "trials" to five or six (six allows easier balancing of "different/same" conditions as each session can be balanced) per session, tests the actual test setup including listeners for sensitivity to known audible phenomenae before testing ones being disputed and finally, instead of a sensationlist "everything sounds the same" conclusion presents findings as a confidence interval, as in "we can be sure to the following degree we have not missed things and we can be sure to the following degree that we found is real" and not as an abstract pass/fail test (which quite frankly is the kind of statistics only Tony Blair's, Gordon Brown's, Maggie Thatcher's, George Shrub's (Jun & Sen) and Ronald Reagan's Governments would dare to employ to deceive the gullible and which the chinese communist party would never bother with....).

Ciao T

 

The educated ones wouldn't. There is no difference to the probabilities between tossing a coin four times today and four times tomorrow and eight times today. There's obviously a problem if you forget to record the 64 tosses inbetween...

Paul

 

Quite the opposite is true. As Stereo Mic has said he was a cable believer and is now a skeptic. I was once a beliver too and also became a skeptic. sideshowbob was also once a believer but is a long time skeptic.

ball-of-fire's Santa Claus analogy above is perfect, in more ways than one.....

Michael.

PS: Stereo Mic gave me a very hard time when I cured myself of the cable delusion but I'm happy to see he has also found the cure. No hard feelings

 

just becasue you can't hear a difference in your experience doesn't mean it can't exist.
options.

you didn't hear it
it doesn't exist due to amp cable mix in this instance.
there is no possible difference all cables are =.

read the linbk on the other thread, these guys are showing differences at both ends of the cable. only time will tell if their methodology is solid.

 

have you stopped noticing any difference or you just stopped bothering?

i've never been a cable fanatic but i've always thought that the audible differences between many cables exist (don't know about L,C & R data - i've never been that mad to read these specs). it's already some time that i don't bother playing with the cables. too boring and life's too short. plus i'm quite confident my current setup is very close to its limits.

am i now a cable sceptic?

 

i'd fall into the same category as anu', i'm never going to change my cables, unless i change my gear or my rack necessiting more or longer cables.

my amps are powerful and stable enough not to really give too much of a rats ass what they are connected with, the wire is wide enough, inductance and capacitance is low and it's more conductive than copper. short of removing some potential EMF,that i can't hear with head on the drive units anyway i believe it would serve no purpose.

i certainly wouldn't be looking to add someone elses snake oil to the system.

quick question Mic, if you were present at an ABX where you did the ABX and someone was 90% right, would you then believe?

 

I'd be bloody impressed - assuming of course I was monitoring the test and making sure it wasn't rigged. Also it has to be said that getting something right say 9 times out of 10 would scientically be judged as "lucky" and insignificant. Myself I don't think it would ever happen under controlled conditions. I once was convinced it would be easy - the differences were that huge. I put my convictions to the test. The differences disappeared. They have not come back.

 

Forgot to put your makeup on today Andy? You're starting to look like Worf! .

 

was an early start...

 

If you consider a probability of just over 1% to be 'insignificant' then you're right.

Paul

 

I can demonstrate easily to anyone who wants to visit preston that by in lowering inductance increases upper mid/treble.

I have anticables wire and their specs are when untwisted...

Resistance = 0.00318 Ohms/foot run
Inductance = 0.82uH/foot run
Capacitance = 0.002nF/foot run

when twisted it goes to ...

Resistance = 0.00318 Ohms/foot run
Inductance = 0.30uH/foot run
Capacitance = 0.048nF/foot run

when untwisted the sound rolls off the higher detail of cymbal crashes and loses air in the sound. When you twist (if you twist alot) you can make the sound totally harsh and bright.

PM me if you would like a demo