Audible difference between analog interconnects

[Jud]

That doesn't make the Fourier transform any less correct.

 

Quite true. Might make it less useful in resolving particular audio issues that turn on what people hear.

[Sal1950]

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

 

The key word there Jud is "sometimes". You and the other subjectives here position is always "they NEVER work". That's just a BS excuse.

[mansr]

Google wavelet tutorial to learn about a substitute for the Fourier transform. This is cool stuff.

 

The Fourier transform is a special case of the general idea of decomposing a signal using a basis function. Depending on the application, some basis functions are more practical than others.

[Jud]

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

 

R

 

No. What I am saying is that ABX testing is extremely unlikely to produce a positive result even if the difference being tested can be shown to be audible under other circumstances. The exception to this general rule is where there is a loudness difference; people will nearly always be able to pass an ABX test where a loudness difference is involved.

[mansr]

Quite true. Might make it less useful in resolving particular audio issues that turn on what people hear.

 

The time and frequency domain representations of a signal contain the same information. Crucially, they both contain all the information. Some aspects may be difficult to quantify in either domain, but the information is still there.

[Jud]

The key word there Jud is "sometimes". You and the other subjectives here position is always "they NEVER work". That's just a BS excuse.

 

To the contrary, they work with high reliability for loudness differences.

[sandyk]

The key word there Jud is "sometimes". You and the other subjectives here position is always "they NEVER work". That's just a BS excuse.

 

If the participant has a vested interest in the result, stress is a very definite factor, which may result in elevated BP, with some participants even experiencing severe headaches with the lengthy sessions demanded by some.

In my case, stress increases my BP, which results in degraded hearing, as I have an Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal.

[Jud]

The time and frequency domain representations of a signal contain the same information. Crucially, they both contain all the information. Some aspects may be difficult to quantify in either domain, but the information is still there.

 

I would say what is crucial when we're talking about music is how the ear-brain processes time domain vs. frequency domain information.

[mansr]

I would say what is crucial when we're talking about music is how the ear-brain processes time domain vs. frequency domain information.

 

It's the same information regardless of how it is processed.

[plissken]

- 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.

 

You assume too much then. You assume what is being tested for. I'm not testing cables, I'm testing a claimants ability.

 

- *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.

 

That's great and thank you. I'm 100% ok with that.

[plissken]

No. What I am saying is that ABX testing is extremely unlikely to produce a positive result even if the difference being tested can be shown to be audible under other circumstances.

 

What are those "other circumstances" you refer to?

[mansr]

What are those "other circumstances" you refer to?

 

Sighted testing, duh.

[Sal1950]

sighted testing, duh.

 

 

lol

[Jud]

What are those "other circumstances" you refer to?

 

Have a look at the "cap rolling" entry in my blog. I would be fine with a blinded version of that.

 

I also conducted a blinded test here; the thread title is something like "Here's a little test you can all join in." I would be fine with the version of the blinded test given to subjectivists there.

[semente]

No. What I am saying is that ABX testing is extremely unlikely to produce a positive result even if the difference being tested can be shown to be audible under other circumstances. The exception to this general rule is where there is a loudness difference; people will nearly always be able to pass an ABX test where a loudness difference is involved.

 

I see, I didn't understand from your original message.

 

I am also convinced that short term A-B comparisons are ineffective for comparing more "subtle" differences.

 

R

[esldude]

No. What I am saying is that ABX testing is extremely unlikely to produce a positive result even if the difference being tested can be shown to be audible under other circumstances. The exception to this general rule is where there is a loudness difference; people will nearly always be able to pass an ABX test where a loudness difference is involved.

 

A myriad of results make your statement about ABX false. You have been hinting at your write up on ABX testing for quite some time. I think you need to elucidate more of it or write the blog for it. ABX tests can and have regularly given results on distortion, frequency effects, and other factors beyond just loudness. So if you have good examples beyond conjecture now would be the time to release those. Otherwise, just based on the quote above, you are woefully misrepresenting ABX testing. Which leaves me discounting your objections to the problems.

 

Of course in the case of wires, there simply is no good physical explanation for how anything could be audible about them in general use beyond real simple LCR effects. ABX only comes into it then if you wish to claim beyond all we know something is audible. ABX results would go a ways to give some credence to that. If you instead wish to criticize the usefulness of those tests as an arbiter of the audible then you are back to no measurements agree, no blind testing agrees, and so what????? That I hear it and somehow it must be so? Do you have something else in mind on that count? What keeps you from doing channel vs channel wire comparisons? Seems like the long way around to blind yourself (pun intended) to the obvious.

[Paul R]

That doesn't make the Fourier transform any less correct.

 

It makes saying what you are describing as "the Fourier Transform" a more of less inaccurate approximation of what a human hears.

 

Are you stuck in the idea of the math being correct? It is correct, but it also isn't what is coming out of those speakers

[Paul R]

It's the same information regardless of how it is processed.

 

No - no it is not. We humans process a continuous analog signal, the electronics process a discrete digital signal that uses numeric approximations of the continuous Fourier transform that in itself, is an approximation and simplification of the original continuous analog signal.

 

They are *not* the same.

[Jud]

What keeps you from doing channel vs channel wire comparisons?

 

There would be no practical way to do them blinded in my system (many delicate cables, looks like spaghetti to anyone but me, not a lot of room in back of the equipment), except for possibly USB cables; I'd be interested but don't have dual DACs to get a right channel from one cable and a left channel from the other.

 

Are you (or anyone else reading) able to do a blinded cable comparison, where one cable supplies the left channel, a different cable supplies the right, and you listen to well recorded mono?

[Jud]

I see, I didn't understand from your original message.

 

I am also convinced that short term A-B comparisons are ineffective for comparing more "subtle" differences.

 

R

 

Depends how short-term. Very quick switching (on the order of a couple of seconds for each sample) can result in very effective ABX tests. But then you should think of an implication of that last statement.

[mansr]

Are you stuck in the idea of the math being correct?

 

If you're going to question the validity of mathematics, there is no point discussing with you.

[Paul R]

If you're going to question the validity of mathematics, there is no point discussing with you.

 

Yeah, why don't you read what I wrote instead of pouting? I said, very clearly, the math is correct.

 

I also said you are also very wrong to jump to the conclusion that the math exactly describes the reality of what we hear. It is an approximation *only*. why else do you think different filters can produce different audible results?

[mansr]

Yeah, why don't you read what I wrote instead of pouting? I said, very clearly, the math is correct.

 

I also said you are also very wrong to jump to the conclusion that the math exactly describes the reality of what we hear. It is an approximation *only*.

 

Are you saying sound cannot be fully described as an amplitude vs time waveform?

 

why else do you think different filters can produce different audible results?

 

A filter alters the signal. That is its entire purpose.

[Paul R]

Are you saying sound cannot be fully described as an amplitude vs time waveform?

 

Mathematically? Of course it can. If of course, you assume infinite input.

 

Practically? Not a chance, we use all sorts of approximations, processing, filtering, tricks, and electronics to attempt to reproduce the original continuous analog signal.

 

Are you saying that a PCM (or DSD) audio file exactly describes the original analog signal? Or that the reproduced signal from the digital approximation will be heard exactly as if it were the original signal? You do see that both of those statements are obviously false, right?

 

We can come very close, but it isn't the same. And when it comes to human hearing, well, human hearing is more sensitive to the differences in reproduced sound, especially digital sound, than some folks assume.

 

A filter alters the signal. That is its entire purpose.

 

Usually removing artifacts that were not in the original sound to begin with.

[esldude]

There would be no practical way to do them blinded in my system (many delicate cables, looks like spaghetti to anyone but me, not a lot of room in back of the equipment), except for possibly USB cables; I'd be interested but don't have dual DACs to get a right channel from one cable and a left channel from the other.

 

Are you (or anyone else reading) able to do a blinded cable comparison, where one cable supplies the left channel, a different cable supplies the right, and you listen to well recorded mono?

 

You don't need two dacs for analog cable. Just feed the dac mono. If your cable is too delicate, you could always use a couple of less delicate cables that you think sound different.

 

There are some ways to run two dacs together. You need a clock with multiple outputs (which I don't know of except expensively). Or you can use two dacs that will lock to an external source and feed one serially from the other while the dac, cable etc. are two different items. There are some other caveats to do that well, but depends on what you are trying to test. It might cloud results. So negative results don't prove or disprove anything. Positive results despite the other issues would be of interest as always.