[neekomax]

which is why i said ethan was arrogant - that he believes everything can be measured.    

That seems like an eminently reasonable belief to me. 

What's an example of something that is unmeasurable?

[Rclark]

Heck blind people can read emotion on faces, this is lab tested. And not just faces but images of faces. And people are doing experiments now that seem to prove a form of social telepathy. There is still a lot to learn about our senses. We have senses nobody even knew about.

[Steve]

That seems like an eminently reasonable belief to me. 

What's an example of something that is unmeasurable?

Masking distortion. Does anyone have any idea how it is measured, what instruments are used etc? How about depth, width, image clarity? This has been brought up more than once, pages ago, but everyone seems to scatter. 

Cheers.

[Quiet Earth]

AJ,

Regarding solid core wire vs. stranded, and better yet,,,,, real litz wire . . . . 

It just sounds better to me.

[sebrof]

That seems like an eminently reasonable belief to me. 

What's an example of something that is unmeasurable?

I don't know if this answers your question directly or not, but I've used the example of drug or bomb sniffing dogs at the airport. When I see them I think that there is no electronic device that is better at detecting than a dog.
And our security depends on that.

Now we look at audio and music, and some people say that the best way to measure and to detect differences is with electronic devices.
And internet spats and not much else depends on that. IOW - There's much less of an impetus to invent something to detect changes in music vs. drug/bomb sniffers.

That's just one of the reasons why I have a hard time beleiving we can measure everything we can hear.

[neekomax]

I don't know if this answers your question directly or not, but I've used the example of drug or bomb sniffing dogs at the airport. When I see them I think that there is no electronic device that is better at detecting than a dog.
And our security depends on that.

Now we look at audio and music, and some people say that the best way to measure and to detect differences is with electronic devices.
And internet spats and not much else depends on that. IOW - There's much less of an impetus to invent something to detect changes in music vs. drug/bomb sniffers.

That's just one of the reasons why I have a hard time beleiving we can measure everything we can hear.

Fair enough.

I'm not here to vouch for the infallibility and infinite sensitivity of this or that measurement technique/instrument. That would be absurdly beyond my pay grade 

It simply seems to me that audible differences should be measurable with commonly available technology and methods. Could be wrong there, most certainly.

[AJinFLA]

AJ,

Regarding solid core wire vs. stranded, and better yet,,,,, real litz wire . . . . 

It just sounds better to me.

Bingo. Then it's all good. How could I possibly have beef with that?
You prefer Heineken. You think Jessica Alba is the hottest babe on earth. Pure subjectivity. Nothing to argue about....
But..noooo....

cheers,

AJ

[Danny Richie]

Dan, would you believe me if I told you I actually do measure my speakers with a bath room scale? Seriously.
cheers,

AJ

I believe you man.

Does that mean the differences are below the noise floor?   

No, but if the noise floor were to be lowered, would you not hear it.

I get such a kick out of the guys that claim wire is wire. Guys, the wire can be an antenna or a filter. You can change its filtering effects using the same wire.

Here is a super simple example. Take three wires 6 feet long, lay them side by side just like in a cheap power cord. Then put a PVC jacket on them. Now you have cable A. Cable B uses the same wire, but you braid it. Now Cable B has become a filter. At least in some ranges. They don't even measure the same in LCR now. The L and the C have changed. That's easy to measure. Do you guys expect them to still sound the same? One cable is filtering high frequency....

[AJinFLA]

I don't know if this answers your question directly or not, but I've used the example of drug or bomb sniffing dogs at the airport. When I see them I think that there is no electronic device that is better at detecting than a dog.

Doesn't mean bomb materials trace levels are unmeasurable. That's absurd.
It means Dogs are either the most reliable and/or most economical.

That's just one of the reasons why I have a hard time beleiving we can measure everything we can hear.

First, define "hear". What do you mean precisely?
If that falls into the Soundwave > Pinna definition, then cite one single thing that can be "heard" that isn't measurable.

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

Here is a super simple example. Take three wires 6 feet long, lay them side by side just like in a cheap power cord. Then put a PVC jacket on them. Now you have cable A. Cable B uses the same wire, but you braid it. Now Cable B has become a filter. At least in some ranges. They don't even measure the same in LCR now. The L and the C have changed. That's easy to measure. Do you guys expect them to still sound the same? One cable is filtering high frequency....

Filtering you say?....careful Dan..... http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx.
Oh wait, no ASA here, just us guys, never mind
Hey, I'm still looking forward to much better resolution on my netbook!! QSXGA, here I come, woohoo

cheers,

AJ

[Rclark]

Wow! Great read, nice find

Filtering you say?....careful Dan..... http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx.
Oh wait, no ASA here, just us guys, never mind
Hey, I'm still looking forward to much better resolution on my netbook!! QSXGA, here I come, woohoo

cheers,

AJ

[sebrof]

Doesn't mean bomb materials trace levels are unmeasurable. That's absurd.
It means Dogs are either the most reliable and/or most economical.

Yes I agree, I assume that trace levels are measurable, but that dogs are "better." Better can mean more accurate or more cost effective.
But in order to be that much more cost effective that the governments would use dogs would mean the electronics would be pretty darn expensive, close to state of the art. i.e: Not easily obtainable for the governments of the world.

Then I consider the audio guys, and the cost / payoff to dumping what I suspect is a lot of money into something that can detect minute nuances in very complex music better than we can ourselves...It doesn't add up for me. In spite of what someone said in an earlier post (that whoever proves PC make a difference will be rich), I don't see the money in it, there's no payoff. That's all, really. No scientific data or links to studies.

First, define "hear". What do you mean precisely?
If that falls into the Soundwave > Pinna definition, then cite one single thing that can be "heard" that isn't measurable.
cheers,
AJ

Hear as in hear, detect by listening. Pretty straightforward.
I can't cite anything that can be heard but not measured, sorry. But I can't cite anything a dog can sniff better than a machine yet I see the dogs at the airport every time I fly.

[face]

Heck blind people can read emotion on faces, this is lab tested. And not just faces but images of faces. And people are doing experiments now that seem to prove a form of social telepathy. There is still a lot to learn about our senses. We have senses nobody even knew about.

If you want to make a good impression, this is why you should smile when speaking to someone on the phone.  http://www.impactcommunicationsinc.com/pdf/nwsltr_2002/ICINwsltrph0208.pdf

[doug s.]

Masking distortion. Have any idea how it is measured, what instruments are used etc? How about depth, width, image clarity? This has been brought up pages ago, but everyone seems to scatter. 

Cheers.

yes - how exactly, does one measure soundstage width, depth, or height?  with a tape measure?  or, added detail/clarity?  with a spectrograph? 

one of the things i am into is fm.  i have compared a lot of tunas.  a lot.  i know that many, which measure well, do not sound as good as others, which measure not so well.  in many cases, it's hard to correlate what is measured with what is heard.

doug s.

[planet10]

Does that mean the differences are below the noise floor? If that's the case, then that would be a logical reason why they cannot be heard.

It has been shown that people can hear down into the noise.

dave

[planet10]

... and each time, the noise floor dropped, and more music was revealed...

Better and better downward dynamic range (DDR)

dave

[doug s.]

Better and better downward dynamic range (DDR)

dave

yup - less masking of low level details...  i wonder if it measured different?

doug s.

[JohnR]

Hi there... I "kinda sorta" got answers to my question about what exactly a "null test" is. Thank you to those who provided background information - in the context of the discussion about power cords, I don't think I got anything specific, so I will have to make some assumptions about that. I suppose it would be an interesting test to run, although I rather doubt anyone will or could be bothered to do so.

Personally, I think the discussion has been pretty much polarized. I propose we lock it, and encourage anyone with actual results to start a new thread in the appropriate place.

[Steve]

yes - how exactly, does one measure soundstage width, depth, or height?  with a tape measure?  or, added detail/clarity?  with a spectrograph? 

doug s.

Hi Doug,

There are some mechanisms that affect soundstage, depth, width etc. For ease of discussion I shall just call the three etc mentioned "X" for typing ease.

1) Room acoustics

2) Recording itself has spacial information

3) Electronic equipment

A) Once room acoustics is set, it does not change (unless speakers are moved, acoustic treatments added etc.).
Movement of one's head is of little importance, and one can simply move their head 3-6 inches in any direction to check and verify for any perceived differences. Peaks and valleys at high frequencies are commonly less than 1/3 octave and thus are rarely noticed (See Rane corp for further explanation.) If a particular harmonic just happens to be at a peak or valley the instrument might sound different.

B) The recording itself contains information, including low level information that affects X. For instance if an individual moves away from the mic, that information is in the recording. A good example is  Stereophile 3, track 10. One will hear a gent (with cow bell) travel across stage, and then will be 50 feet from the microphone, at the rear of the auditorium and walk towards the mic.

The room accoustics has not changed, but the recording itself contains the necessary low level information, the cues, that one has traveled across the stage, and then is 50 feet from the microphone. He should sound well behind the wall at 50 feet back.

C) Next, the audio playback components. This is where masking distortion, frequency response variations etc from component to component will change X.

As discussed in previous posts, masking distortion can occur as excessive noise, or as frequency response problems such as the bass masking midrange and high frequency low level information. This will vary with the component.
Another source is parts variations such as capacitor dielectric absorption (DA), etc.
Of course smearing due to capacitor equivalent series resistance (DF) tends to cover up low level information.
And as mentioned in previous posts, mixing of the left and right channel signals due to L and R signal current returns through three common paths, the shields and AC power cord ground wire (pin 1). And it is frequency related (due to resistance and inductance) as discussed in previous posts.

Since audio components have various degrees of the above problems, low level information masking will be different, thus differently perceived X, or soundstage, depth, width etc.
And home setups are different than the lab.
We are also dealing with music consisting of fundamentals and many  harmonics rather than simple sine waves.

Test equipment on a lab bench is just not going to accurately measure and correlate to one's perceived musical pleasure.

Cheers.

[Letitroll98]

Personally, I think the discussion has been pretty much polarized. I propose we lock it, and encourage anyone with actual results to start a new thread in the appropriate place.

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing John, not much new info here as usual.  There were a few good posts, but then these were largely ignored, Steve is making another brave attempt above.  It is a testament to AC members that it's pretty civil for the most part, much better than most of these threads on other forums, a B- AC'ers, respectable.  Personally, if there's no giant flame wars ensuing, I like letting these things die a natural death.