[turkey]

I don't impune your right to buy and use whatever products you feel meet your needs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impugn

[turkey]

I found your comment amusing.   However, in all seriousness, I remember discussing with Dr. Geddes at his house about some research that he was doing or maybe he was reading, that suggested that there is some music that is much better at highlighting differences in audio tests than others.  He made reference to Tracy Chapman, saying her voice represented this idea.  (about how her voice had a unique quality that made things easier to detect). 

Interesting.

I know there are a number of people that use one female vocalist or another as their "acid test" when listening to audio equipment.

[Kevin Haskins]

I don't impune your right to buy and use whatever products you feel meet your needs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impugn

I've been caught by the spelling police!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c3fvqNlFvc&feature=related

I use Norah Jones when I'm voicing speaker crossovers and it has totally ruined my ability to enjoy her music.    I enjoyed this little clip with my kids though. 

[turkey]

I've been caught by the spelling police!   

I couldn't resist.

[kyrill]

too many people dont see their TV set flicker at 60 hz. They are true, they don't see it.
I even believe  most ppl including PhD and EE dont see it, as in my country where it is even 50 hz and much easier to
get bothered by it  complaints are very very rare.
Why should this only be true for  visual perceptions?
I would rather assume the same with audio.  most people dont hear at all what a sensitive real minority is hearing
But it  is utter nonsense and extreme arrogance to accept, because the majority doesn't hear it,  it does not exist
except as a hallucination. Wake up, the rest of yr life will open up too

Measurements are very very necessary secondary to hearing experiences. Yr ear is client in audio set ups, not yr understanding

[Ethan Winer]

I alienate more customers by taking these positions than I attract.

Me too, but I continue anyway because I believe so strongly in The Truth (tm). From my perspective this is a consumerist issue. If someone bought an expensive power cable and believes the sound improved, that's fine with me. Nothing I say will convince them otherwise anyway. But most people want to spend wisely, and truly want to know what matters and what doesn't. Those are the people I write for.

--Ethan

[Browntrout]

"The paper is disingenuous and obviously self-serving.   Its purpose is to convince people to buy expensive cable with the premise of it being scientifically proven.   It plays to what people want to believe with the purpose of giving them another reason to do so.     It has nothing to do with good science because it ignores the obvious questions that any critical thinker would ask.  

I don't apologize for being a critic.   Being constructively critical is genuinely a useful tool in evaluating what works and what doesn't.   If I where not critical of what I believed in relation to audio, there are a thousand false bunny-trails that lead nowhere.  

The last thing I'll say is that my criticism has nothing to do with you.   On a personal basis I have no animosity over the subject and I have no intention of belittling you.   I don't impugn your right to buy and use whatever products you feel meet your needs.   This is a hobby and it is done for the purpose of enjoyment.   Far be it for me to tell people what they should and should not like.    My only issue is with the premise of calling this good science.    It isn't, otherwise it would take into account the obvious questions.   It would show the effects of RFI on the output of various amplifiers and it would compare that with a simple line filter.   It would explain or at least correlate the subjective perceptions that people have in a way that jives with what is being measured.    All of those are simple questions that should be easily answered yet they are completely ignored.   Why would anyone go through the trouble of writing such a paper and totally ignore the obvious?   I can only come to the conclusion that the author knew the results of those questions and the answers wouldn't sell cables. "

 Firstly thanks for appologising, it's not you particularly that comes across as insulting and I should also appologise for getting wound up about this and writing without my personal editor enabled.
  As for your post above, I think you are expecting too much from the paper, it was comissioned specifically to answer an accusation of false claims and in the introduction he states what the purpose of the test is to show being that the woven cables reduce RFI in the mains supply. To study the affect of RFI on the outputs of amplifiers would be another experiment. Comparing with a simple line filter would most probably show that the filter produced a much greater reduction in RFI than the cables (which is admitted by the manufacturer) though they claim certain filters alter the sound of a hifi adversly whilst doing so where the cables do not have this side effect.
  Concerning subjective listening well these cables have been selling with the same basic woven design for thirty years which even the most sceptical person must admit is a very good track record for a hifi product and surely suggests at a product that actually works.
  There are definatley more tests that could be done and the more done the better, they would benefit all who enjoy the finer side of stereo but this should not be a critiscism of the chap who ran the tests really. (he does loads of other stuff if you wish to have a look at his website)
  I don't claim his work to be definitive but to me it does prove that the cables reduce RFI in the mains as claimed, I have these cables and went through an upgrade path with them so have listened for months to all the cables tested in my own system and found there to be a real and obvious improvement in sound.
  I genuinely would not say that if it were not the case, and certainly would not have bought more of the same if they showed no benefit.
  Ultimately does the test carried out prove that the cables reduce RFI in the mains? I think it does quite clearly, you can even see the differences between the cables and the rather interesting nature of the attenuation even to the point that normal wire is better at removing RFI at certain frequencies, perhaps a combination of number of conductors, weave and contruction will produce the best sound. It would be nice to see a plot for a cable of 3m long constructed partly out of normal wire, 8 woven,16 woven and 32 woven conductors to see if the beneficial characteristic of each could be gleened by a mix and match cable.

[Kevin Haskins]

too many people dont see their TV set flicker at 60 hz. They are true, they don't see it.
I even believe  most ppl including PhD and EE dont see it, as in my country where it is even 50 hz and much easier to
get bothered by it  complaints are very very rare.
Why should this only be true for  visual perceptions?
I would rather assume the same with audio.  most people dont hear at all what a sensitive real minority is hearing
But it  is utter nonsense and extreme arrogance to accept, because the majority doesn't hear it,  it does not exist
except as a hallucination. Wake up, the rest of yr life will open up too

Measurements are very very necessary secondary to hearing experiences. Yr ear is client in audio set ups, not yr understanding

You are right in that studies don't show individual preference.   For them to be valid, they have to be done on a population.   The nature of subjective preference is complex too so that introduces extra variables that you have to deal with in a study.

But... you can measure and report that a certain percentage where able to see the 60hz flicker (2%).   You can correlate that with other studies and you can make generalizations about what a test audience preferred and why.    

The same is true of studies in audio.   Those are statistical in nature and they say nothing about what an individual will like.   But... that is our job as engineers.   It is to unravel what most of the population will perceive as "high-end".    If there is one out of a hundred individuals that doesn't like what the other 99 do, then their subjective opinion is discounted.    

[kyrill]

Ethan I see yr sincerity

But  almost every perspective has a dark side
I give you the dark side of yr last statement:

It is good that most consumers don't trust their ears, even when it sounds good to them
So they come to me to ask what cable measures best as i make them belief what measures best, sounds best

[Ethan Winer]

It's probably time to post some links to an alternative test for audibility of jitter

I downloaded all five files and in a quick listen I heard no difference. I had to use headphones because my wife sleeps late, but I played the files pretty loudly. Another issue is the QuickTime player makes it difficult to switch quickly from one file to another. When I do listening tests like this I load the files onto separate tracks in SONAR, then set up the Solo switches so I can immediately switch to any one file with a single click. Using SONAR also lets me try to null the files. If a pair of files nulls completely, that proves they are identical even if it seems they sound different.

Also, aren't those QuickTime files lossy compressed? An uncompressed 16/44 stereo Wave file 44 seconds long should be about 7.5 MB in size, but these files are half that. Doesn't this kinda defeat the whole point of a critical listening test?

Also, I saw no indication of how much artificial jitter was applied. Usual amounts? Or 1,000 times what ever actually occurs naturally? IMO this is the best way to assess the audibility of jitter - keep adding more and more until it its clearly audible by everyone. If that amount is twice what's usual, we have a problem. If it has to be 17,000 times more than usual before we hear it, that proves that usual amounts cannot be audible. That's the same idea I used in my Artifact Audibility Report, where I start with so much noise that anyone can hear it, and go softer and softer with each example. This makes is much easier for people to get a feel for what they're listening for.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

The problem is we cannot call anybody a liar due to the subjective nature of these discussions. What if you hear something and all the scientific proof in the world says you shouldn't?

Actually, this is very easy to settle for once and for all. If someone claims they can pick out jitter, or dither, or a replacement AC power cable, ad nauseum, all they have to do is show that they can pick it out without looking (blind test). It's that simple.

--Ethan

[kyrill]

[

You are right in that studies don't show individual preference.   For them to be valid, they have to be done on a population.   The nature of subjective preference is complex too so that introduces extra variables that you have to deal with in a study.

But... you can measure and report that a certain percentage where able to see the 60hz flicker (2%).   You can correlate that with other studies and you can make generalizations about what a test audience preferred and why.    

The same is true of studies in audio.   Those are statistical in nature and they say nothing about what an individual will like.   But... that is our job as engineers.   It is to unravel what most of the population will perceive as "high-end".    If there is one out of a hundred individuals that doesn't like what the other 99 do, then their subjective opinion is discounted.    

I accept that but the reason is economical. They dont represent the bulk of the (high end) market. What makes me sad ( but not really sad) is to discount it as nonsense and imagination

[Niteshade]

TV's generally don't flicker, I was talking about the older computer monitors, the CRT variety. When they're set at a 60hz refresh rate I see flicker. Some people do not. I liked my CRT's set at 74hz.

[Ethan Winer]

I give you the dark side of yr last statement:

It is good that most consumers don't trust their ears, even when it sounds good to them
So they come to me to ask what cable measures best as i make them belief what measures best, sounds best

Not sure what you're trying to say there kyrill, but what measures best does indeed sound best. Unless you prefer distortion (some do), or rolled off highs (some do), or exaggerated lows (some do). In that case it's a free for all. But distortion and a non-flat response can be had for very little cost!

--Ethan

[Kevin Haskins]

[

You are right in that studies don't show individual preference.   For them to be valid, they have to be done on a population.   The nature of subjective preference is complex too so that introduces extra variables that you have to deal with in a study.

But... you can measure and report that a certain percentage where able to see the 60hz flicker (2%).   You can correlate that with other studies and you can make generalizations about what a test audience preferred and why.    

The same is true of studies in audio.   Those are statistical in nature and they say nothing about what an individual will like.   But... that is our job as engineers.   It is to unravel what most of the population will perceive as "high-end".    If there is one out of a hundred individuals that doesn't like what the other 99 do, then their subjective opinion is discounted.    

I accept that but the reason is economical. They dont represent the bulk of the (high end) market. What makes me sad ( but not really sad) is to discount it as nonsense and imagination

Well.... if you ignore the fact that we imagine things that are not real, you ignore a very common phenomena.    Why would we ignore something that is easily proven in regards to subjective observations?    Our subjective observations are highly fallible.   People absolutely refuse to accept that what they hear, may not be real.    

For those who refuse to accept that premise, I refuse to accept their observations.    I think that is fair.   If you ignore the elephant in the room, I ignore your opinions.    I find it hard to do otherwise.  

[bpape]

TV's generally don't flicker, I was talking about the older computer monitors, the CRT variety. When they're set at a 60hz refresh rate I see flicker. Some people do not. I liked my CRT's set at 74hz.

Ah.  There's one of the rubs though.  Generally, you'll see flicker on an old CRT monitor much more easily if you're sitting in an area lit with florescent lighting rather than incandescent.  Would anyone think to measure the lights?  The monitor will measure just fine.

Just something to chew on.

Bryan

[Niteshade]

There's nothing wrong with AB tests.  

Headphones- that was a superb idea!

[JoshK]

Stop boasting, I don't care, it does not matter, wasn't talking about that, make fun, make fun, I work with clever people, abuse position of power.

I am assuming this is directed at me.  I think you keep presuming that I am biased on the other side of the argument.  In order for that to be the case I would have to have an opinion on the matter and that would mean I actually have any interest in this discussion;  I don't. 

I have only responded to your cries of unfairness and inappropriateness for which there seems to be no basis. 

[Kevin Haskins]

I give you the dark side of yr last statement:

It is good that most consumers don't trust their ears, even when it sounds good to them
So they come to me to ask what cable measures best as i make them belief what measures best, sounds best

Not sure what you're trying to say there kyrill, but what measures best does indeed sound best. Unless you prefer distortion (some do), or rolled off highs (some do), or exaggerated lows (some do). In that case it's a free for all. But distortion and a non-flat response can be had for very little cost!

--Ethan

I'd say you have to look at the overall power response and of course how it was mastered isn't a hard science.   There is a subjective element in that the recording engineer used a monitoring system to decide what he wanted on the recording.    How that compares with the playback system has a lot of ambiguity.    

What aggravates me is that we don't have a standard in the recording industry for mastering.   People use all types of mastering systems and acoustical environments to evaluate the final product.    How do you know what the recording engineer wanted you to hear?  How do you know that rolled off highs are not what he/she wanted?   He may have been using Auratone 5Cs, or Yamaha NS-10M for monitoring and listening in the near-field, where the response changes drastically with position.   Those are obviously much different then listening in the far field in a normally reflective room with a pair of speakers with drastically different power response.  

The problem starts with the lack of standards on the mastering side.   If we had a standard there, we would then be able to meaningfully talk about what we should get on the playback side.  

[Niteshade]

"What aggravates me is that we don't have a standard in the recording industry for mastering.   People use all types of mastering systems and acoustical environments to evaluate the final product.    How do you know what the recording engineer wanted you to hear?  How do you know that rolled off highs are not what he/she wanted?   He may have been using Auratone 5Cs, or Yamaha NS-10M for monitoring and listening in the near-field, where the response changes drastically with position.   Those are obviously much different then listening in the far field in a normally reflective room with a pair of speakers with drastically different power response. 

The problem starts with the lack of standards on the mastering side.   If we had a standard there, we would then be able to meaningfully talk about what we should get on the playback side.  "

====================

I have to think about this. Good points- but I don't know if it has to be this complicated.  I have recordings where the highs are rolled off and some where they are not. I don't believe you have to take it back as far as the recording studio. We have no control over anything on the 'other side' of the CD or LP. 

Have you ever used a thundering rainstorm as a test? It's incredibly detailed, contains a plethora of frequencies, has a sound stage and only works well with Hi-Def audio systems.  Of course the storm has to be VERY well recorded. It's easy to mess such recording up, especially the thundering part.  The listener has to acclimate themselves to the recording as well. There's so much detail it will take a few listening sessions to ascertain what's going on.