Jump to content
IGNORED

Audible difference between analog interconnects


Recommended Posts

Attack and release can also be described as frequencies. It's called Fourier transform.

 

Doesn't matter: you're missing a huge portion of what makes timbre and also localisation/soundstage if you don't mention time.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
Also easily measured.

 

Then show me how to do it. If you can show me how to really measure timbre, I have no problem with being wrong. If I start by playing a recording of an acoustic instrument on my system (piano, violin, trumpet, ....), what's the actual process to measure timbre?

Link to comment
Attack and release can also be described as frequencies. It's called Fourier transform.

 

Yes, though I'd like to see more work on simultaneous variation of timing and frequency. The work that has been done is interesting, because it may indicate that musicians are particularly sensitive to this simultaneous variation beyond the Fourier limit. If this is so, then it may be that music contains enough such variation beyond the Fourier limit to provide a training effect. In turn then, one would want electronics capable of reproducing such variation, and measurements/specs showing they had that capability.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Then show me how to do it. If you can show me how to really measure timbre, I have no problem with being wrong. If I start by playing a recording of an acoustic instrument on my system (piano, violin, trumpet, ....), what's the actual process to measure timbre?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to measure accurate timbre reproduction, those '20+ audible qualities' that Jud mentioned previously?

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini i7 2018 -> HQPlayer NAA / microRendu -> RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
I would not be certain unless the difference is in loudness. If it is in virtually any other audible quality, I would be doubtful. And yes, even where people feel they can easily hear the difference - unless, like beautox, they've done long, intensive training regarding exactly what to listen for.

 

Jud, I like testing claims. I'm not asking you to be tested for someone else's.

Link to comment

Apparently BJC designed their LC-1 Low-Capacitance interconnect:

 

The result is a cable which combines, to the extent practical, the best possible attributes of an analogue audio line-level cable. Its capacitance is extremely low, at 12.2 pF/ft, while its shielding is extremely effective at rejecting audio-frequency interference. Meanwhile, though it has the outer dimensions and appearance of 8281F, it is more flexible due to the extremely soft dielectric and smaller center conductor. Theoretically, one could improve further on both shielding effectiveness (by inserting more layers of shielding) and capacitance (by increasing the size of the dielectric, shields and jacket)--but either would require making the cable impractically large. We feel that LC-1 represents the best combination of electrical characteristics and usability of any analogue audio cable on the market today.

 

LC-1 Audio Cable Design Notes -- Blue Jeans Cable

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini i7 2018 -> HQPlayer NAA / microRendu -> RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

"You find me that scenario, backed by bias controlled evaluation, then there indeed WILL be something to talk about."

 

Unless I didn't understand your reply, I suggested timbre.

 

"I did indeed check the specs: The Telegartner terminations are 6a only. Period/End of Story/Game Over."

 

I checked again. AQ terminators are rated for CAT 7 and are backwards compatible with 6a. I know you don't like AQ, but do you really think they would go through the trouble of building a CAT 7 cable, only to put a 6 connector on it? You'll say yes, so you don't have to bother answering that one.

 

"Find me the 'Scientists' that disagree."

 

Bill Lowe, Matthew Bond and Steve Nugent.

 

"Then it will be measurable."

 

I agree.

 

"I have $$ says you can't tell the difference with a Quality DAC, Computer, Display and affordable USB(Belkin), Ethernet(BJC), HDMI (BJC) when you don't know what is in circuit."

 

You may be right. Affordable doesn't mean poor quality. For example I have some mid line AQ cables that outperform cables that cost 2-3 time more.

Link to comment
"You find me that scenario, backed by bias controlled evaluation, then there indeed WILL be something to talk about."

 

Unless I didn't understand your reply, I suggested timbre.

 

The problem is that there is no quantifiable measure for timbre. There also is no instrument for measuring shape (e.g. square, pyramid, dog), but that doesn't mean that an object cannot be measured in minute detail.

 

"I did indeed check the specs: The Telegartner terminations are 6a only. Period/End of Story/Game Over."

 

I checked again. AQ terminators are rated for CAT 7 and are backwards compatible with 6a. I know you don't like AQ, but do you really think they would go through the trouble of building a CAT 7 cable, only to put a 6 connector on it? You'll say yes, so you don't have to bother answering that one.

 

CAT 7 does not include a specification for 8P8C (RJ45) connectors. It follows that such connectors cannot be CAT 7 rated.

Link to comment
Jud, I like testing claims. I'm not asking you to be tested for someone else's.

 

Right, but let's assume for the moment I'm correct. Then what would you have proved when the claimant was unable to pass an ABX regarding a non-loudness-based audible difference, other than that the claimant is human and wasn't aware of the difficulty the vast majority of people have passing such a test?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

 

I checked again. AQ terminators are rated for CAT 7 and are backwards compatible with 6a. I know you don't like AQ, but do you really think they would go through the trouble of building a CAT 7 cable, only to put a 6 connector on it? You'll say yes, so you don't have to bother answering that one.

 

Telegaertner doesn't make a CAT7 spec industrial RJ45 connector that AQ uses. Here's their site Telegärtner :: Professional solutions in connection technology, precision turned parts, plastic injection mould parts

 

Knock yourself out.

 

"Find me the 'Scientists' that disagree."

 

Bill Lowe, Matthew Bond and Steve Nugent.

 

Bill Lowe isn't a scientist. He's not even remotely holding credentials that allow him to speak to it. I provided links you provided names.

Link to comment
Right, but let's assume for the moment I'm correct. Then what would you have proved when the claimant was unable to pass an ABX regarding a non-loudness-based audible difference, other than that the claimant is human and wasn't aware of the difficulty the vast majority of people have passing such a test?

 

Then their claim is proved false. For pete's sake you really don't get it?

 

Why are you making an excuse for the claimant (wasn't fully aware of the 'difficulty') and not owning up to the possibility that it's just in their head or their claim is spurious?

Link to comment
"You find me that scenario, backed by bias controlled evaluation, then there indeed WILL be something to talk about."

 

Unless I didn't understand your reply, I suggested timbre.

 

The problem is that there is no quantifiable measure for timbre. There also is no instrument for measuring shape (e.g. square, pyramid, dog), but that doesn't mean that an object cannot be measured in minute detail.

 

CAT 7 does not include a specification for 8P8C (RJ45) connectors. It follows that such connectors cannot be CAT 7 rated.

 

Mansr, he may have suggested timbre but it didn't come along with a properly bias controlled example for it.

 

On the Tera or GG45 connectors vs 8P8C it's why I can't reasonably trust what others are saying: They have zero idea what they are talking about.

Link to comment

 

Bill Lowe isn't a scientist. He's not even remotely holding credentials that allow him to speak to it. I provided links you provided names.

 

In the audiophile cable world Bill Low is perhaps the equivalent to Maxwell. He does have all the proper credentials and experience in selling things. Noel Lee would perhaps be like Newton in the cable world. I suppose someone like whomever is at Nordost is the equivalent to Einstein. Even then the guys at SR are in cuckoo cloud land. That is where clouds are mistaken for cloud chambers for particle discovery.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
In the audiophile cable world Bill Low is perhaps the equivalent to Maxwell. He does have all the proper credentials and experience in selling things. Noel Lee would perhaps be like Newton in the cable world. I suppose someone like whomever is at Nordost is the equivalent to Einstein. Even then the guys at SR are in cuckoo cloud land. That is where clouds are mistaken for cloud chambers for particle discovery.

 

I'd rather liken them to God, Jesus, and Mohammed (in no particular order). SR is L Ron Hubbard.

Link to comment
Time and frequency are equivalent. That's the Fourier transform.

 

Wow - you say that like you know what you are talking about. The very way you present it as if it is the answer to the question that was posed, however, argues your understanding of human hearing and just what is perceptible to humans is quite flawed.

 

Might try looking up some articles in Nature a few years ago by Henning [edit - that would be Henning, not penning...PR] and Fleischmann where studies were made on digital vs human drummers, and the perceptions people had on them. They give a hint of how devilishly complex this whole subject is.

 

And no, it is not by an stretch of the imagination, "only" an engineering problem.

 

-Paul

 

P.S. Yeah, I can see SR as the L. Ron Hubbard of the cable world. On the other hand, I think some of the other folks, especially Joe Reynolds and his team up in Holliston are anything but fake religion nut cases. You may like to snark at 'em on forums like this, but they are all pretty good guys up there. Scientists, engineers, and technicians. Fascinated by wire...

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Then their claim is proved false. For pete's sake you really don't get it?

 

Why are you making an excuse for the claimant (wasn't fully aware of the 'difficulty') and not owning up to the possibility that it's just in their head or their claim is spurious?

Absolutely. If the claimant cant' substantiate his claims they are invalid, that is the obvious conclusion. There is no magic involved.

There's always some excuse why any type of non sighted testing doesn't work

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Link to comment
Wow - you say that like you know what you are talking about. The very way you present it as if it is the answer to the question that was posed, however, argues your understanding of human hearing and just what is perceptible to humans is quite flawed.

 

The Fourier transform is correct beyond a shred of a doubt regardless of what humans can or cannot hear.

Link to comment
Then their claim is proved false. For pete's sake you really don't get it?

 

Why are you making an excuse for the claimant (wasn't fully aware of the 'difficulty') and not owning up to the possibility that it's just in their head or their claim is spurious?

 

- I asked in the previous comment for you to assume I was correct that ABX tests won't normally be passed for non-loudness-based audio differences.

 

- *If* that's correct, one possible reason for not passing the test is that the claimant was wrong that there were audible differences. Another possibility is that audible differences exist, but like the vast majority of people, the claimant couldn't pass an ABX test regarding them.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
The Fourier transform is correct beyond a shred of a doubt regardless of what humans can or cannot hear.

 

But what humans hear is not a Fourier transform. Besides, what I think you are talking about is the numerical approximation of a continuous Fourier transform.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

There's always some excuse why any type of non sighted testing doesn't work

 

Yes. But sometimes the "excuse" has been substantiated by scientific research.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
- I asked in the previous comment for you to assume I was correct that ABX tests won't normally be passed for non-loudness-based audio differences.

 

- *If* that's correct, one possible reason for not passing the test is that the claimant was wrong that there were audible differences. Another possibility is that audible differences exist, but like the vast majority of people, the claimant couldn't pass an ABX test regarding them.

 

Are you saying that since the level was matched, the difference (level mismatch) was removed?

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini i7 2018 -> HQPlayer NAA / microRendu -> RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Google wavelet tutorial to learn about a substitute for the Fourier transform. This is cool stuff. Apologies ahead of time for the math.

 

Independent component analysis ICA also offers some fascinating capabilities.

 

Both allow the demixing of a signal over time by frequency or source. Once demixed one can playback the results of any single output, change or eliminate one of the outputs, and remix it all back together.

 

Both of these algos have been used for signal integrity and noise reduction for years in the mobile phone field.

 

The Yale University math department has a specialist program in harmonics and is one of the institutions leading this field.

 

The University of Helsinki has a specialist program in independent component analysis.

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...