Listen to cable directionality

[christopher3393]

All totally explained by the fact that you, witchdoctor, and sandyk are so consumed by audiophilia nervosa that

you can no longer tell your butt from a hole in the ground. LOL

From the perspective of homeomorphic topology, they are the same, objectively.

 

 

OR:

 

[kumakuma]

Given the rather nasty personal attacks on another member recently,as well as a history of similar attacks on myself at every opportunity ,I will not be replying directly to this member on any subject.

 

Interesting that you choose to defend someone who caused Barry D to stop posting on this forum.

[Sal1950]

Silver is indeed quite harsh. On your wallet.

Well every audiophool knows silver sounds much brighter than copper, and that copper in comparison has that warm coloration. LOL

[esldude]

Silver Resolution

 

Try ordering both a copper and silver cable from Signal Cable. Keep what you like reject what you don't, they will refund you. Not too harsh on the wallet either.

You could use the Jud comparison method, hook the copper rca to one channel and the silver rca to the other to compare. The winner will still come in at less than $100 whichever you choose.

 

I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another? Emeralds vs Diamonds.

[esldude]

Firstly, congratulations to @Jud. 5-for-5. The man

 

Secondly, did not expect to hear differences. But did*.

 

 

 

Thirdly, cannot speak for everyone, but was not ‘guessing’.

 

So, listened to files one more time:

 

Well, T2 still ‘showed’ the most difference. And, still prefer 2B.

More ‘open' mid-highs/highs, clearer vocals and bass notes, better high-hat decay.

Same reasons why 3A ‘sounds’ better than 3B. Imho. Two systems -> one’s ears/brain.

 

Do not know what to make of it.

 

*For everyone who ‘heard’ a difference or ‘expressed’ a preference, this is the point.

 

Just from esldude changing cable directionality in recording?

Note: esldude’s cables. While recording. Not listeners’ during playback.

 

Well you correctly matched directionality with something 3 out of 5 times. If you had scored 5 of 5 in the same direction whether all correct for the arrow or all incorrect it would lend some credence to the idea you were hearing an effect of which direction the cable is being used. With a score near chance that idea isn't supported by these results. Whether there was an audible difference is questionable even from such results. There is no question you perceived a difference just no answer as to why.

[witchdoctor]

I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another? Emeralds vs Diamonds.

 

You already have the cables, hook one up to each channel and post the results. I trust you even though others may not. Look forward to your opinion, thanks.

[witchdoctor]

Well you correctly matched directionality with something 3 out of 5 times. If you had scored 5 of 5 in the same direction whether all correct for the arrow or all incorrect it would lend some credence to the idea you were hearing an effect of which direction the cable is being used. With a score near chance that idea isn't supported by these results. Whether there was an audible difference is questionable even from such results. There is no question you perceived a difference just no answer as to why.

 

Actually there is an excellent point from this exercise. Leave your expectations at the door and conduct blind testing of the cable in both directions. Hook it up whichever way sounds best to you. We all got different results so who can say what you will like personally, just try for yourself and see.

[sandyk]

Alex, the Barrows excerpt says jitter *reduces* detail and *increases* the impression of soundstage. I think you may have suggested it does the reverse wrt detail.

 

Jud

I didn't include a bit about this from Barry D due to not having permission to quote him. However, I feel sure he won't mind me quoting a small part.

He noted that with my comparison track with more Jitter : "the "shimmer" is a negative, as though some random treble energy surrounded the details in the recordings."

 

Some may perceive this as a little extra detail.

 

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

Please check your PMs re your question for Barry.

[17629v2]

I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another? Emeralds vs Diamonds.

 

I know I can. I did a blind test with 3 other people and we compared the AQ Cheetah to the AQ Panther. The 2 cables are identical except for the conductors. Instead of putting 1 piece of wire on one channel, and the other piece on the other, I used a CD player that has 2 sets of outputs and plugged each set of IC's into an input on the preamp. We played a short clip that we all agreed upon. Sighted, we could hear the difference between the cables with no problems. Looking back, we really didn't need to do 100 tries each; 50 would have been more than enough. I just didn't want there to be any question that we got lucky and guessed correctly. Since I set the test up with all of my gear and knew the recording we picked, I was able to get a perfect score of 100. The other scores were, 95, 92 and 88. The interesting thing to note about the other scores, is that all the errors were made in the beginning of the test. After about 20 tries, the other 3 testers made no more mistakes.

 

If you want a real challenge, try comparing 2 cables that are identical in every way, with an element that makes a much smaller difference than the conductors. Take the AQ Jaguar and the AQ Panther. Both cables are identical, with the only difference being the dielectric. The Panther uses Teflon, and the Jaguar PE. Much harder to tell the difference between the 2. I can tell the difference, but I probably wouldn't get a perfect score on that comparison.

[witchdoctor]

I know I can. I did a blind test with 3 other people and we compared the AQ Cheetah to the AQ Panther. The 2 cables are identical except for the conductors. Instead of putting 1 piece of wire on one channel, and the other piece on the other, I used a CD player that has 2 sets of outputs and plugged each set of IC's into an input on the preamp. We played a short clip that we all agreed upon. Sighted, we could hear the difference between the cables with no problems. Looking back, we really didn't need to do 100 tries each; 50 would have been more than enough. I just didn't want there to be any question that we got lucky and guessed correctly. Since I set the test up with all of my gear and knew the recording we picked, I was able to get a perfect score of 100. The other scores were, 95, 92 and 88. The interesting thing to note about the other scores, is that all the errors were made in the beginning of the test. After about 20 tries, the other 3 testers made no more mistakes.

 

If you want a real challenge, try comparing 2 cables that are identical in every way, with an element that makes a much smaller difference than the conductors. Take the AQ Jaguar and the AQ Panther. Both cables are identical, with the only difference being the dielectric. The Panther uses Teflon, and the Jaguar PE. Much harder to tell the difference between the 2. I can tell the difference, but I probably wouldn't get a perfect score on that comparison.

If you want a real challenge, try comparing 2 cables that are identical in every way, with an element that makes a much smaller difference than the conductors.

 

Excuse me, the OP offered a "real challenge" and you declined to participate. If you want to start a new challenge record some files and start a new thread. I think the only ones in THIS thread that can make any type of a claim about challenges are the people who checked their fear of being wrong at the door and participated.

I really don't think you should be one to talk about challenges unless you participated in THIS thread, If you want a new challenge start a new thread, I'm game, are you?

[17629v2]

If you want a real challenge, try comparing 2 cables that are identical in every way, with an element that makes a much smaller difference than the conductors.

 

Excuse me, the OP offered a "real challenge" and you declined to participate. If you want to start a new challenge record some files and start a new thread. I think the only ones in THIS thread that can make any type of a claim about challenges are the people who checked their fear of being wrong at the door and participated.

I really don't think you should be one to talk about challenges unless you participated in THIS thread, If you want a new challenge start a new thread, I'm game, are you?

 

Are you on crack? What challenge was issued? Not that I owe you, or anyone else an explanation, but I was responding to a question asked by the OP.

 

"I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another?"

 

My answer was appropriate for the question asked. Besides, I already took the challenge years ago and gave the results in my last post. What is it about my test you can't trust, but you can in the OP's?

 

But that's not the good part. Here is one of your posts.

 

"Try ordering both a copper and silver cable from Signal Cable. Keep what you like reject what you don't, they will refund you. Not too harsh on the wallet either.

You could use the Jud comparison method, hook the copper rca to one channel and the silver rca to the other to compare. The winner will still come in at less than $100 whichever you choose."

 

Now, Here's esldudes direct response to that very post.

"I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another? Emeralds vs Diamonds."

 

He was issuing what you call a "challenge" to you, not me.

 

And your response to this challenge?

 

"You already have the cables, hook one up to each channel and post the results. I trust you even though others may not. Look forward to your opinion, thanks."

 

So, "I really don't think you should be one to talk about challenges unless you participated in THIS thread, If you want a new challenge start a new thread, I'm game, are you?", should apply to you as well? Or are the rules you go by different than the ones you set for yourself?

 

 

 

 

[Sal1950]

Are you on crack? What challenge was issued? Not that I owe you, or anyone else an explanation, but I was responding to a question asked by the OP.

 

Talk talk talk. But when it came to putting your ears where your mouth is, in a blind test where others can collaborate the outcome, you ran away like a school boy. (or girl?)

[17629v2]

Talk talk talk. But when it came to putting your ears where your mouth is, in a blind test where others can collaborate the outcome, you ran away like a school boy. (or girl?)

 

Maybe. But at least I can run. Can you? (Besides your mouth, because we all know that runs perfectly.)

[Jud]

Are you on crack?

 

At this point, who do you think is putting credence in or receiving any value from your posts? You appear unable to cope reasonably with others' views.

[witchdoctor]

Are you on crack? What challenge was issued? Not that I owe you, or anyone else an explanation, but I was responding to a question asked by the OP.

 

"I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another?"

 

My answer was appropriate for the question asked. Besides, I already took the challenge years ago and gave the results in my last post. What is it about my test you can't trust, but you can in the OP's?

 

But that's not the good part. Here is one of your posts.

 

"Try ordering both a copper and silver cable from Signal Cable. Keep what you like reject what you don't, they will refund you. Not too harsh on the wallet either.

You could use the Jud comparison method, hook the copper rca to one channel and the silver rca to the other to compare. The winner will still come in at less than $100 whichever you choose."

 

Now, Here's esldudes direct response to that very post.

"I have the same exact construction as the Diamonds only in copper. The AQ Emeralds. Think you could hear one channel vs another? Emeralds vs Diamonds."

 

He was issuing what you call a "challenge" to you, not me.

 

And your response to this challenge?

 

"You already have the cables, hook one up to each channel and post the results. I trust you even though others may not. Look forward to your opinion, thanks."

 

So, "I really don't think you should be one to talk about challenges unless you participated in THIS thread, If you want a new challenge start a new thread, I'm game, are you?", should apply to you as well? Or are the rules you go by different than the ones you set for yourself?

 

 

 

I don't see how recreational drugs has anything to do with your claims about what you can hear and the equipment you own. You never took the challenge for whatever reasons and I did. You don't have a pair ____________ of ears:) and the people that took the challenge do. I really don't know what more needs to be discussed. Even Sal stepped up to the challenge.

All I see from you is name calling and even that is not very good. As a member of your caliber please try and avoid pettiness, it is beneath you.

[witchdoctor]

Maybe. But at least I can run. Can you? (Besides your mouth, because we all know that runs perfectly.)

 

This thread is not about physical fitness or sprinting. I don't see the point of a counter attack on Sal when all he did was state the facts. He took the challenge and probably was the least inclined member to do so in this thread and you didn't. Sal has a pair___________ of ears:)!

[17629v2]

2 things, and I'll be quick about it.

 

1. There was no challenge issued to me. I couldn't take it even if I wanted to because I don't even know what it is.

 

2. "At this point, who do you think is putting credence in or receiving any value from your posts? You appear unable to cope reasonably with others' views."

 

When people attack me, I respond. That's just how I am. As far as other members placing value on my posts, I really don't give a rats ass. I'd sooner put a bullet through me head than worry about what Sal and some of the other clowns think of me. Pleasing them wasn't on my to do list today, and it never will be. So if you guys like me, great, and if not, that's just as good. Looking back on the few months that I've been posting on CA, I can honestly say that I've got nothing of value for my involvement here. This place is like the Jerry Springer show. Time out of your life that you can't get back.

 

Now for the insults. Fire away.

[witchdoctor]

At this point, who do you think is putting credence in or receiving any value from your posts? You appear unable to cope reasonably with others' views.

 

I agree and have added 17629 to my ignore list and suggest you do same.

[plissken]

At this point, who do you think is putting credence in or receiving any value from your posts? You appear unable to cope reasonably with others' views.

 

I'd just settle on his learning to use the quote system....

[Sal1950]

It's a two way street. To receive something of value from CA, you have to contribute something of value.

 

2 things, and I'll be quick about it.

 

1. There was no challenge issued to me. I couldn't take it even if I wanted to because I don't even know what it is.

 

2. "At this point, who do you think is putting credence in or receiving any value from your posts? You appear unable to cope reasonably with others' views."

 

When people attack me, I respond. That's just how I am. As far as other members placing value on my posts, I really don't give a rats ass. I'd sooner put a bullet through me head than worry about what Sal and some of the other clowns think of me. Pleasing them wasn't on my to do list today, and it never will be. So if you guys like me, great, and if not, that's just as good. Looking back on the few months that I've been posting on CA, I can honestly say that I've got nothing of value for my involvement here. This place is like the Jerry Springer show. Time out of your life that you can't get back.

 

Now for the insults. Fire away.

[plissken]

Bottom line in this thread is:

 

1. Not a large enough sampling

2. With what we have already I'd bet the #'s would extrapolate to random guessing with a large enough N.

 

Cherry pick track two like some of us some how nailed it is missing the point. You cant get 2 or 3 out of five correct and use that as some form of vindication. Bottom line is it was all guessing.

 

Empirically there isn't any difference in the files once the A and B tracks were compared in audio diff maker. Just a flat line of nothingness.

[christopher3393]

... Looking back on the few months that I've been posting on CA, I can honestly say that I've got nothing of value for my involvement here. This place is like the Jerry Springer show. Time out of your life that you can't get back.

 

Do you think there is an escape route? I think it might just be a big circle.

 

[kumakuma]

I'd just settle on his learning to use the quote system....

 

+1

 

This is ONE of the reasons why I rarely read his posts.

[topofdaworldma]

Maybe the test would have been a little more valid if one pair of tracks had been keyed from the start i.e. we knew which was which in advance. Then the remaining tracks left to the listener to decide.

However, which was better would only be in the ears of listener and subject to many things including personal preference.

 

The better question could have been which is preferable, as the manufacturer intended, the other way, or no difference. This would at least be a valid argument.

 

Without any reference point, of how the track(s) should be, the test was pretty much scuppered from the start.

 

Another point, as already stated by Superdad, is that this test only has validity on cables that are not mechanically directional e.g. pseudo-balanced. (I think I'm correct in saying the cables used here were indeed psuedo balanced if used in RCA form).

 

All, of course, IMHO.

 

For the record I only listened to the first two tracks but had them the "correct" way around.

[Sal1950]

Maybe the test would have been a little more valid if one pair of tracks had been keyed from the start i.e. we knew which was which in advance. Then the remaining tracks left to the listener to decide.

However, which was better would only be in the ears of listener and subject to many things including personal preference.

 

The better question could have been which is preferable, as the manufacturer intended, the other way, or no difference. This would at least be a valid argument.

 

Without any reference point, of how the track(s) should be, the test was pretty much scuppered from the start.

 

Another point, as already stated by Superdad, is that this test only has validity on cables that are not mechanically directional e.g. pseudo-balanced. (I think I'm correct in saying the cables used here were indeed psuedo balanced if used in RCA form).

 

All, of course, IMHO.

 

For the record I only listened to the first two tracks but had them the "correct" way around.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the test, it was to determine if cable directionality was actually audible. If a significant number of listeners had voted either BABAB or ABABA that would have shown that AQ's claims are valid (which they are not).