Listen to cable directionality

[witchdoctor]

D,

Just to quiet a few in the peanut gallery I gave the files a listen.

Used the two of my systems most revealing configurations with,

My Emo DC-1 DAC plugged directly into the L/R front amp

Listened on my Sennheiser HD650 headphones plugged into the DC-1 DAC

I couldn't reliably discern differences between any of the files.

Cent' Anni

 

Bravo, thanks for posting

[gmgraves]

I get all that George. That is not what AQ says however.

 

There are videos and interviews where claims are made that wire sounds differently one way vs the other. One of their guys has the job of listening to each new wire spool and determining the right direction via a listening test. Says he likes to use a harmonica recording. They also put arrows on their ethernet cables and such which also makes no sense.

 

I don't really really buy that, although I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. The "arrow" has been on quasi-balanced RCA-to-RCA cables for years. The manufacturer must mark the cable, otherwise the buyer has no way to tell which end of the shield is "floating". One can't figure it out because the return conductor is inside the static shield making it impossible to use a continuity test to determine which end of the shield is grounded.

[gmgraves]

So there is the possibility that it may be due to changed plug and socket contact?

Even the application of Deoxit Contact Cleaner, Rejuvenator & Preserver has been well documented as achieving similar results.

 

 

The people (Dayton-Wright) who sold "Tweek" (Stabilant 22) used to tell people to apply the stuff on one channel of one's stereosystem only and then listen to a mono source while listening to first the untreated channel, and then the treated channel by moving the balance control from full left to full right. Now, in order for this test to really be telling, one should set both speakers side-by-side, and one can, indeed, easily hear the difference between the treated side and the untreated side. Stabilant is sold as a contact "enhancer" and it really works. It has both a MIL-Spec number, a NASA number, as well as a GM SAE number. I was having trouble with my electronic speedometer on my Alfa Romeo GTV-6. I couldn't make it work reliability, until I treated the connector on the speedo with the Stabilant and I haven't had trouble with the speedo since then! Same with an intermittent tail-light. A treatment with Stabilant 22 (Stabilant cut with isopropyl alcohol) fixed that too. I always keep a bottle of Stabilant on hand. I buy it from an automotive tool supplier even though it's expensive, (US$80 for 100cc) It really works. Luckily, a 100cc bottle will last for years. I use it every time I break and re-make a connection on my stereo system. I've never tried DeOxit, I wonder if that has Stabilant in it too?

[gmgraves]

I wonder where the Bill Lowes dielectric material that they charge with a battery is? After all a dielectric is just an insulator between two conductors. Is the cable a coax a triax or what?

 

I'm skeptical. The battery is only connected at one end. IOW, the battery is not connected to a complete circuit. That's why the batteries last so long. The cable is not drawing any current, so the battery life should be the same as the battery's shelf life!. I don't see how it can do anything as it's not a complete circuit.

[Sal1950]

I don't really really buy that, although I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. The "arrow" has been on quasi-balanced RCA-to-RCA cables for years. The manufacturer must mark the cable, otherwise the buyer has no way to tell which end of the shield is "floating". One can't figure it out because the return conductor is inside the static shield making it impossible to use a continuity test to determine which end of the shield is grounded.

George, Which part don't you buy? The part that he hears a difference in the directionality, or that anyone is actually even listening before marking?

[witchdoctor]

I'm skeptical. The battery is only connected at one end. IOW, the battery is not connected to a complete circuit. That's why the batteries last so long. The cable is not drawing any current, so the battery life should be the same as the battery's shelf life!. I don't see how it can do anything as it's not a complete circuit.

 

So what files did you like? Are you gonna post your preferences?

[Sal1950]

The people (Dayton-Wright) who sold "Tweek" (Stabilant 22) used to tell people to apply the stuff on one channel of one's stereosystem only and then listen to a mono source while listening to first the untreated channel, and then the treated channel by moving the balance control from full left to full right. Now, in order for this test to really be telling, one should set both speakers side-by-side, and one can, indeed, easily hear the difference between the treated side and the untreated side. Stabilant is sold as a contact "enhancer" and it really works. It has both a MIL-Spec number, a NASA number, as well as a GM SAE number. I was having trouble with my electronic speedometer on my Alfa Romeo GTV-6. I couldn't make it work reliability, until I treated the connector on the speedo with the Stabilant and I haven't had trouble with the speedo since then! Same with an intermittent tail-light. A treatment with Stabilant 22 (Stabilant cut with isopropyl alcohol) fixed that too. I always keep a bottle of Stabilant on hand. I buy it from an automotive tool supplier even though it's expensive, (US$80 for 100cc) It really works. Luckily, a 100cc bottle will last for years. I use it every time I break and re-make a connection on my stereo system. I've never tried DeOxit, I wonder if that has Stabilant in it too?

Beyond any difference from enhanced connections. I would imagine the two speakers might sound and be measured different due to changes in radiation and room interaction with the speakers being in different locations. Also the fact that no two speakers will sound or measure exactly the same.

[gmgraves]

George, Which part don't you buy? The part that he hears a difference in the directionality, or that anyone is actually even listening before marking?

 

Actually, I skeptical of both assertions.

[gmgraves]

Beyond any difference from enhanced connections. I would imagine the two speakers might sound and be measured different due to changes in radiation and room interaction with the speakers being in different locations. Also the fact that no two speakers will sound or measure exactly the same.

 

 

Yes, but the differences are greater than the differences between two supposedly identical loudspeakers. How do I know this? Because after noticing the differences between the "treated" and "untreated" channels, I went back and treated the untreated channel. Then the two sides sounded, for all practical considerations so close to one another , that I could no longer tell which channel I was listening to.

[plissken]

Is anybody able to hear any difference between the attached, and either of the track 2 versions ?

Plissken may be able to ?

 

Download the files (within 14 days) here:

https://fil.email/LJH8l

 

May be that I'm not seeing what I think I'm supposed to see is a 2 a.zip that is 8MB in size and has only one .wav file in it.

 

Never mind. Soon as I posted the light turned on.... :-) I'll call this track 2 C

[Axial]

Using some AQ Diamond interconnects I recorded 5 tracks. Each has an A and B version. One version of each follows the path of the cable as suggested by AQ. One version has the cable reversed. Which is which varies from track to track. I am not posting a poll as they seem to get little participation. However you can download the zip file below and it will open into a folder with all ten tracks. See if you can hear which direction is reversed. The odds of guessing right on all five is 1 out of 32. You don't have to listen to all of course.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k37iqsb4fnsoywo/AQ%20directional%20cable%20files.zip?dl=0

 

When can we expect to have the revelations?

[mansr]

When can we expect to have the revelations?

As in the book of?

[esldude]

When can we expect to have the revelations?

 

I don't know. Not before Monday. As usual when files to listen to are offered response is low. I will give it a couple more days at least. Some people are likely busy over the weekend. It won't be terribly long.

 

Unless you are asking mansr's question. Then it might take a bit longer (I hope).....

[plissken]

Is anybody able to hear any difference between the attached, and either of the track 2 versions ?

Plissken may be able to ?

 

Download the files (within 14 days) here:

https://fil.email/LJH8l

 

Foobar AB/X said I was guessing (7 our of 16 correct) I can't tell. I washed 2A and 2C (Alex supplied file) through AudioDiff Maker. Then opened up the resultant differences wav in Audacity:

 

 

Next I checked the files MD5 and both returned 47580ee77cdd6725da9f273e80677b3a (can someone verify?).

 

The files don't sound any different because there isn't a difference subjectively or empirically.

 

Thanks for posting it Alex.

[sandyk]

Foobar AB/X said I was guessing (7 our of 16 correct) I can't tell. I washed 2A and 2C (Alex supplied file) through AudioDiff Maker. Then opened up the resultant differences wav in Audacity:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29168[/ATTACH]

 

Next I checked the files MD5 and both returned 47580ee77cdd6725da9f273e80677b3a (can someone verify?).

 

The files don't sound any different because there isn't a difference subjectively or empirically.

 

Thanks for posting it Alex.

 

Surprise, Surprise !

As expected you just had to look at the bloody things before you even listened to them !

Of course you didn't hear any differences after that, and neither did you wish to, as you have way too much credibility to lose.

Yes, that is the .md5 checksum for both versions of .wav file 2a

BTW, Foobar 2K ABX is FAR from transparent, as is the SQ from this application designed by a committee, in comparison with other players such cPlay XXHE, Miska's HQ etc.

 

Did you see post 59 ? Dennis listened BEFORE checking them.

[Sal1950]

Surprise, Surprise !

As expected you just had to look at the bloody things before you even listened to them !

Of course you didn't hear any differences after that, and neither did you wish to, as you have way too much credibility to lose.

Yes, that is the .md5 checksum for both versions of .wav file 2a

BTW, Foobar 2K ABX is FAR from transparent, as is the SQ from this application designed by a committee, in comparison with other players such cPlay XXHE, Miska's HQ etc.

 

Did you see post 59 ? Dennis listened BEFORE checking them.

Just another example of how you can never be trusted.

[plissken]

Surprise, Surprise !

As expected you just had to look at the bloody things before you even listened to them !

Of course you didn't hear any differences after that, and neither did you wish to, as you have way too much credibility to lose.

Yes, that is the .md5 checksum for both versions of .wav file 2a

BTW, Foobar 2K ABX is FAR from transparent, as is the SQ from this application designed by a committee, in comparison with other players such cPlay XXHE, Miska's HQ etc.

 

Did you see post 59 ? Dennis listened BEFORE checking them.

 

I did see post 59. Am I somehow at odds with Dennis?

 

I went through the subjective process first with JRiver. Then Foobar for AB/X. So I did an ears only evaluation. I either had to settle on that they sounded the same or there was a difference that other people were hearing and inversely I was not.

 

I chose to side with my ears and then did some forensics and saw that the the files were the same.

 

It is what it is Alex and it's why I pointedly asked others to MD5 hash the track you supplied and compare it to what I posted to see if I'm still doing something wrong after all the machinations I went through. It's a concession to me being human.

 

If you don't think that what I posted is transparent then there is really nothing more to speak with you about in this matter.

[sandyk]

I went through the subjective process first with JRiver. Then Foobar. So I did an ears only evaluation. I either had to settle on that they sounded the same or there was a difference that other people were hearing.

 

I chose to side with my ears and then did some forensics and saw that the the files were the same.

 

It is what it is Alex and it's why I pointedly asked others to MD5 the track you supplied and compare it to what I posted to see if I'm still doing something wrong after all the machinations I went through.

 

If you don't think that what I posted is transparent then there is really nothing more to speak with you about in this matter.

 

What's next ? Wave some money around like you usually do ?

Once you woke up to the fact that the files were likely to have the same 1s and 0s because they came from me, there was never a snow flake's chance in hell that YOU would ever hear differences ! Your huge dose of Expectation Bias would never permit that.

[plissken]

What's next ? Wave some money around like you usually do ?

 

I have zero idea what you are now ranting about. Color me confused.

 

I listened to the file you provided and they are the same file as if you simply made a copy. I posted the MD5 just in case I was wrong. It's a way for others to verify or invalidate my findings.

[sandyk]

Just another example of how you can never be trusted.

 

Why don't you go ride your bike into the sunset or wherever you normally do ?

You have nothing worthwhile to post in this thread, or most other threads for that matter.

You are saying that I can't be trusted, assuming that I have simply sent the same file back to fool people.

As is usually the case, you have N.F.I !

[plissken]

Just for the sake of clarity (see screen shot) I circled two items. Which is the one you intend to be downloaded or are they both the same file? Are they different ( you said to compare to either Dennis 2a or 2b tracks).

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, but the differences are greater than the differences between two supposedly identical loudspeakers. How do I know this? Because after noticing the differences between the "treated" and "untreated" channels, I went back and treated the untreated channel. Then the two sides sounded, for all practical considerations so close to one another , that I could no longer tell which channel I was listening to.

I am quite surprise by that. I have to think that the before connections were either quite oxidized with some diode effects in action or the connections were weak, (not making tight grip, etc)?

[sandyk]

I posted the MD5 just in case I was wrong. It's a way for others to verify or invalidate my findings.

 

Bullshit !

You posted the .md5 reports so that others would then assume that it was a waste of time listening to the files properly without any preconceptions.

Kudos to Dennis for having a far more open mind than you have, despite not believing that I just may be correct with my reports.

[plissken]

I re-downloaded Alex's supplied file. The MD5 is exactly the same. I have to ask what is the premise behind the file you made available for download?

[Sal1950]

Why don't you go ride your bike into the sunset or wherever you normally do ?

You have nothing worthwhile to post in this thread, or most other threads for that matter.

You are saying that I can't be trusted, assuming that I have simply sent the same file back to fool people.

As is usually the case, you have N.F.I !

OH, don't tell me. You changed the SATA cable on the drive between file loadings. LOL.

You really should consider professional help for your delusional psychotic state..

Do you hear voices too? What are they telling you?

If so please seek consoling before you become dangerous.