Listen to cable directionality

[plissken]

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.

 

What preconception? If you wanted people to hold off with their analysis you could have asked. Sorry I didn't know that was counterpoint to what you posted and then invited people to participate.

 

I simply can't agree with you finding audible differences between to identical files if that is what you are stipulating.

 

If you feel that I've taken something you provided and attempted to hit you over the head with it, that wasn't the intent. But I HAVE to let Audio-Diff Maker, Audacity, the MD5 hash, my own AB/X with Foobar stand on it's own merits.

 

These are all items that anyone else can test for themselves. If it will help I'll take Dennis 2 A track, your supplied track, and create 9 of one and 1 of the other and zip it up and post it for you to download. You can then go through 10 tracks and let us know which is the track you supplied. Is that somehow unfair?

[sandyk]

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.

 

Can't spell properly either ?

[Sal1950]

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.

After all your blow hard talk of the things you can hear that make "night and day" differences I've never heard you have the b-lls to take plissken up on one of his bets. Put some money where your mouth is for once.

[One and a half]

2A has the vocalist to the slight right of centre, 2B she's more spread over the channels. 2B brings out some instruments that are hidden that are easier to pick.

Similar for 5A and 5B, the B version is the better of the two. On both tracks, there seems to be a slight shift to the right of centre, not exactly in the middle, maybe 3-4".

The rest of the music didn't appeal to me, so have no opinion.

 

2A checksum 47580ee77cdd6725da9f273e80677b3a

2B Checksum dc606b267cb5d2dddc228edd04350bc9

2C checksum 47580ee77cdd6725da9f273e80677b3a (supplied by Kethel)

 

Beyond Compare shows no difference (at the Binary level) for 2A or 2C. Data and bit identical.

[sandyk]

What preconception? If you wanted people to hold off with their analysis you could have asked. Sorry I didn't know that was counterpoint to what you posted and then invited people to participate.

 

I simply can't agree with you finding audible differences between to identical files if that is what you are stipulating.

 

If you feel that I've taken something you provided and attempted to hit you over the head with it, that wasn't the intent. But I HAVE to let Audio-Diff Maker, Audacity, the MD5 hash, my own AB/X with Foobar stand on it's own merits.

 

These are all items that anyone else can test for themselves. If it will help I'll take Dennis 2 A track, your supplied track, and create 9 of one and 1 of the other and zip it up and post it for you to download. You can then go through 10 tracks and let us know which is the track you supplied. Is that somehow unfair?

 

I have zero interest in anything you have to say or do.

BTW, you forgot the part about a $2K donation to charity or whatever.

 

You have already made a fool of yourself in your other nasty vendetta thread by now posting that you can hear difference between A.Q. cables in both the recommended direction and the wrong direction.

[sandyk]

After all your blow hard talk of the things you can hear that make "night and day" differences I've never heard you have the b-lls to take plissken up on one of his bets. Put some money where your mouth is for once.

 

Plissken is incapable of organising a proper scientifically valid test for this kind of thing, and given his money waving around antics, I wouldn't trust him as far as I can piss into a headwind at my age !

Bye !

[Sal1950]

plissken is incapable of organising a proper scientifically valid test for this kind of thing, and given his money waving around antics, i wouldn't trust him as far as i can piss into a headwind at my age !

Bye !

Too good to be true?

But BYE (just hoping)

[Axial]

As in the book of?

 

That would be the book of the guy below...the OP...esldude.

 

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.

 

The response is low for only one reason: most people are afraid to be wrong. Am I right?

[plissken]

You have already made a fool of yourself in your other nasty vendetta thread by now posting that you can hear difference between A.Q. cables in both the recommended direction and the wrong direction.

 

Where did I post such a statement? Please either directly quote or redact the statement.

 

I said I was guessing and then randomly chose my 1-5 answers. That they lined up with what you chose is simply the law of probabilities with the fact that 2^5th is 32 permutations. Plus I'll bet you that my correct to incorrect guesses put me in the flipping the coin territory. Which means you will do no better than flipping the coin also.

 

Now that I'm willing to bet you $2000 matched dollar for dollar.

[sandyk]

Where did I post such a statement? Please either directly quote or redact the statement.

 

I said I was guessing and then randomly chose my 1-5 answers. That they lined up with what you chose is simply the law of probabilities with the fact that 2^5th is 32 permutations. Plus I'll bet you that my correct to incorrect guesses put me in the flipping the coin territory. Which means you will do no better than flipping the coin also.

 

Now that I'm willing to bet you $2000 matched dollar for dollar.

 

Here we go again, the usual money waving around that you also did with the cable thread, and the ridiculous notion that you are capable of organising scientifically valid tests.

 

I will say it again.

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.

[One and a half]

The response is low for only one reason: most people are afraid to be wrong. Am I right?

 

Right or wrong is not so much the case, but to detect a difference to begin with is a start, then analyse where is next. Depending on where the shield is connected depends on the amount of other crap that's injected. It is more so, when the source or the amp are true mono designs, but these days, most equipment has the outer shell of the RCA bonded from each channel to each other, so if one channel is bonded, the other will be too.

 

Now this is another reason to use XLR despite their size. It's kind of difficult to get the direction wrong between source and input, not so? Pin 1 is connected to Pin 1.

 

BTW, the imaging on track 2A when compared to playing the original CD is dead centre for Fiona's voice with a little more depth front to back than the wavs, which for a commercial recording is enchanting. I suppose there's some loss from the ADC and the cables of course

[One and a half]

Esldude posts in particular Fiona Apple's Slow like Honey (from Tidal) two versions, one that has a cable reversal. One file has a normal orientation, the other a reverse, the files are called 2A & 2B. Sandyk introduces a 3rd element to the equation with a single wav file, also called 2A.

It sounds the same as esldude's 2A, and lo if a checksum is made of the Kethel and esldude original file, the checksum and binary data are the same, there are no differences.

 

At the f**king point is? Now we'll never know cause sandyk has left the building, and hopefully won't return to the thread. Does sandyk's file sound different to the 2A original, really, does the download corrupt the data, well no, since the measurements made by at least two people verify the data is the same. No corruption.

[sandyk]

Deleted.

[gmgraves]

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)?

 

I have to agree. Now Stabilant IS a US government and an SAE tested contact enhancer and it does work, but I suspect that what it's enhancing is a previously poor, oxidized connection. It sure enough did solve my Italian car's elecrical connections (Italians make marvelous cars, but until recently, they were really sketchy about electrical theory! ).

[Sal1950]

I have to agree. Now Stabilant IS a US government and an SAE tested contact enhancer and it does work, but I suspect that what it's enhancing is a previously poor, oxidized connection. It sure enough did solve my Italian car's elecrical connections (Italians make marvelous cars, but until recently, they were really sketchy about electrical theory! ).

Ever try it on pots and switches? Sounds like it might work well there too. Never had any, but I remember Tweek being marketed for HiFi back in the day

I've been using a product also from the auto market called Wurth Contact OL for years. It's amazing on noisy pots, etc; sprayed it on 70+ year old controls and after a few swipes they work noise free and stay that way near indefinitely. Don't know whats in it, states a bunch of TSRN65261600- numbers and isopropanol? Not cheap but not as pricey as yours.

Contact Cleaner OL | Electronics | Cleaning and Care | Chemical Product | Wurth Site

[livelistenlearn]

Do not be afraid. Think: this is not a test of ‘me’.

Does not matter what you use. Think: this is not a test of ‘my system’.

 

Listen.

Regardless of knowledge, data, beliefs.

May learn/verify something(s). Even if just for oneself. Not for anyone else.

 

The response is low for only one reason: most people are afraid to be wrong. Am I right?

[livelistenlearn]

@esldude,

 

Thanks.

 

Listened.

Not expecting to hear differences. Heard some.

Not sure which way arrow(s) is/are pointing… but the following are one’s ‘preferences’:

 

T1: A > B (most subtle)

T2: B > A (least subtle)

T3: A > B

T4: A > B

T5: B > A

 

Differences are very subtle. But audible. Somehow.

[gmgraves]

Ever try it on pots and switches? Sounds like it might work well there too. Never had any, but I remember Tweek being marketed for HiFi back in the day

I've been using a product also from the auto market called Wurth Contact OL for years. It's amazing on noisy pots, etc; sprayed it on 70+ year old controls and after a few swipes they work noise free and stay that way near indefinitely. Don't know whats in it, states a bunch of TSRN65261600- numbers and isopropanol? Not cheap but not as pricey as yours.

Contact Cleaner OL | Electronics | Cleaning and Care | Chemical Product | Wurth Site

 

Oh, yes it works great on pots and switches too.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Bullshit !

 

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.

 

+1

 

not joining in this debate as been there and done that, just tipping my hat to Dennis.

[17629v2]

So given the chance to grace us with your aural perceptions this is all you got? Have you listened to the files and have an opinion yet? That is what I am interested in for this thread.

 

How many times have I asked you to explain comments that you push off as simple facts? I couldn't even begin to put a number on it. You either ignore me or talk about something else, and pretend to answer with info that doesn't apply. Now, as far as gracing you with my aural perceptions, you can easily get that answer many times over if you've read my threads.

 

But I guess that's not good enough and you still want me to take your test. My answer to that is no, for 2 reasons. First, I don't trust you as far as Sal can throw you. I think you want to be right so bad that you would have no problem fabricating anything just to make yourself look good. Second, I know this a big deal for you because its about listening and you're all excited, but I've already done this 20+ years ago when those cables were current. I still have 3 pairs of them sitting in my closet. Why would I take your half ass test when I can just listen to the ones I have? That said, even if I took the test, you've already passed judgement, so my answers won't matter one bit. You want the test to show a certain result, and I have no doubt you'll get the answer you want.

[r_w]

Hi mate, I thought they all sounded good and had no preference.

 

Couldn't care less what others think about my conclusion as I'm confident my system (given how anally retentively optimised it is) as a whole would hold its own against the majority of systems it would currently be judged against.

 

Personally, If you do try the test I'd be interested to see if you hear any difference worth commenting on, I couldn't come up with anything noticeable enough - I only listened to them once in order, I didn't do any repeat A/B.

 

I have no doubt you'll get the answer you want.

[sandyk]

I think you want to be right so bad that you would have no problem fabricating anything just to make yourself look good.

 

Although Dennis and myself don't agree in many areas, I believe he has genuine strongly held beliefs and would never fabricate stuff to make himself look good.

[Jud]

That would be the book of the guy below...the OP...esldude.

 

 

 

The response is low for only one reason: most people are afraid to be wrong. Am I right?

 

I don't think that's the reason. I'd guess the majority of folks, even among audiophiles, aren't terribly interested in these specific tests or don't think they'll prove anything. And if I'm any indication, many people are, in the words of an old foreman on a long-ago summer job, busier than "a thousand-legger with a hotfoot."

[mansr]

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.

 

I can confirm that Alex's file is exactly the same. I expected nothing less.

[mansr]

Using some AQ Diamond interconnects I recorded 5 tracks.

 

Exactly what interconnect did you use? From what I can tell, the Diamond name is only used on digital cables.