Why tune your system with exotic cables rather than DSP room correction and equalization?

[Jud]

9 hours ago, STC said:

 

Maybe not $500 but how about $10K vs $100K? 

 

I've listened to systems using $30K cables on multiple occasions that I thought sounded bad.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, audiventory said:

 

I think, if you have $200k system, then $30k cables is right option. Not for sound, but for aesthetic reasons.

 

That assumes more expensive cables will look better.

 

But personally I could not give up performance for looks, at least in audio.  Automobiles, perhaps.

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

As near as I can tell Teresa, most high end cable aficionados use cables to "tune" the sound.  

 

Is "crenca" a form of "Kreskin"?  Because you appear to have ESP regarding what "most high end cable aficionados" think.

[Jud]

On 3/29/2017 at 1:18 PM, wgscott said:

Let's assume cables can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sound different. Even in the unlikely event that we all would agree on that, what is the justification for using expensive cables, rather than digital signal processing (room correction, parametric equalization, etc.), whose properties can be readily controlled and whose results are easily measurable, to alter what the music sounds like?

 

Something like upsampling or hi res to hear ultrasonics, I think the notion of cables to "tune" sound has some currency among both proponents and opponents of audiophile cables, but yet may not be a technically valid argument.

 

As you say, if the intent is to tailor frequency response, there are better tools.  To me, the sole technically valid reason to use different cables is better accuracy.  That would involve things like measurements in situ of basic frequency response correctness, certainly, but also measurements for phase correctness and particularly noise (of the entire system).

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

lol I had to look him up!  No, mine is an "empirical" evaluation (of said thinking) based on the reading of many post's here and elsewhere, as well your typical cable review in the typical publications...

 

I think part of this could well be the inadequacy of our audio descriptive language, developed in analog times, in a digital era.  Everything's always "darker" or "brighter" or "warm" or "detailed," though occasionally a "veil is lifted."

 

Here we are 30+ years into the digital era, and can anyone describe to me what the effects of jitter sound like?

 

[Jud]

28 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

veiling is what I usually see as the description

 

 

Yep.  How helpful is that if you were asked to identify which of two files resulted from a system with more jitter?  I've heard "more jitter" files that sounded quite clear and "live" to me.  I doubt if @Miska or @barrows (who I believe was involved in jitter listening tests at PS Audio) would have that problem.  I think many of us lack important listening experience and vocabulary for evaluating the digital audio systems we own or are thinking of buying.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

One viable hypothesis is jitter encountered in modern DACs is typically at a level below audibility.  That would fit with why there is no consensus and a tremendous amount of conjecture about what it sounds like.  How can we describe what we cannot actually hear?

 

Plus auditioning things like the 8th generation copies of files I posted apparently it wasn't readily apparent which was the copy vs the original.  Jitter should have been extensive and multi-layered having gone through two different pieces of gear with two different jitter levels and profiles with that times 8 vs a non-jittered original.  Makes me think those tests showing the audible level is around 2 nanoseconds or greater with music might have it right. 

 

Certainly possible.  I would like to see tests (blinded but not A/B) with listeners who had gone through a great deal of training.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So what methodology and form is your blinded, but not A/B test?

 

Just "A."   Does this file sound to you as if it has jitter?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

That does not seem like a great idea.

 

I know it isn't exactly the same.  However, just using distortion as an example of something similar, you could hear a difference in distorted compared to undistorted at lower levels than if you just are given a sample and say "yes distorted" or "not distorted".  So I would have doubts jitter would be different in that regard as it is a distortion.

 

I suppose if jitter is high enough to listen in isolation and say "jittered" it would be at very high levels. 

 

What are humans really, really good at?  Pattern matching.  What are humans not so good at?  Sensory memory over more than a few seconds.  And that sensory memory store is further mucked up by things like trying to recall sounds from a sequence of notes (see the Diana Deutsch research).  If people get a lot of good training in what jitter sounds like, then it seems to me ability to match the well-learned pattern should work better than trying to use sensory memory to compare sounds from sequences of notes over periods of several seconds.

[Jud]

Just now, STC said:

 

Did you tell your host that it sounded bad?

 

Somehow, audiophiles seemed to avoid speaking the truth in order to avoid offending the host.

 

It was a very old friend of mine at the dealership where he was working at the time, and yes, I told him; I actually knew already that he shared my opinion.  Later, in his home, with different cables (substantially less expensive AQ rather than Transparent), I heard the speakers (Wilson) sounding more musical than I ever had anywhere else, and told him so, though of course he knew already.  (Although there was excellent Ayre amplification at the dealership, he was using a Pass amp at his home, which I think contributed to how much I enjoyed the music.  And his home DAC was an Ayre QB-9, rather than the Audio Research DAC 8 at the dealership.)

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The problem with Jud's "A/B Nyet" proposition is that Floyd Toole tested and found that A/B testing works.

 

 

 

A rather comprehensive statement.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Pattern matching yes, the brain could be called nothing more than an elaborate pattern matching organ. 

With A then B you do have a few seconds of the actual sensory pattern to match.  With A only you are matching to a long term memory pattern.  Which is why I think it would be less perceptive for differences.  While you might solve the dilemma of remembering sounds you do so at the cost of having a less precise pattern to use.  Results of both approaches in hearing distortion seem to go along with the idea A then B is better than just A. 

 

As always, happy to read references.

 

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

I have heard a few artificially jittered samples.  At the level I know it is jitter for sure we are talking not far from what it sounds like to sing in front of a metal bladed window fan.  A near stutter or auto-tune effect.  I am sure with some training one could do better than such a gross mistiming effect. 

 

The history of jitter in audio has been people worried about it as soon as someone said it could be a problem and were willing to sell you a solution.  After that anytime digital didn't sound good to someone they were prone to guess it was jitter. I have witnessed that apparently most audiophiles will play music with at least some clipping/near clipping which they are apparently oblivious to hearing the momentary distortion from that.  In a few cases when the source was digital they would begin to go on about jitter this and jitter that while I was wondering why the momentary clipping didn't bother them.  When I knew them I would point out, "hey, do you realize you're clipping some here?" Reducing the level never resulted in fixing the jitter though.

 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

"Later, in his home, with different cables (substantially less expensive AQ rather than Transparent), I heard the speakers (Wilson) sounding more musical than I ever had anywhere else, and told him so, though of course he knew already." (Emphasis mine)

 

You didn't compare the different cables at the dealership? Different place different sound. Not necessarily got anything to do with the cables.  

 

Absolutely true.  I simply said I'd heard very expensive cables in a correspondingly expensive system that sounded bad.  You asked me whether I told my host that, and I said yes.

 

I will say that having heard Wilson speakers many, many times over many years, there've been few venues in which I've liked them, and never has that occurred when they were paired with the top of the line Transparent or MIT cables.  The sound I disliked may well have resulted from any number of things besides the cables, of course.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

 

This is strange, IMO. It would make more sense to have a flat response from the reproduction system and master the recordings with whatever curve sounds best.

 

But then (1) speaker manufacturers would have a greater problem trying to achieve greater response at higher frequencies, and balance this with midrange response; and (2) people with less than usually responsive rooms at higher frequencies would have more work to do.

 

I suppose I favor allowing individuals to tailor response to suit them, and in general trying not to impose decisions before that point.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Same thing, to an extent. If a designer chooses horns, say, it is probably because he favours their characteristics.

 

Right.  The fact that people have so very many different ideas about what sounds right is why I would prefer a solution that left these sorts of changes to the end user rather than imposing the same non-flat uniform response curve on everyone at the recording end.

 

(If you eventually want to make an analogy to MQA....)

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

well, aim implies an intent -- my thought is that house sound is more of an uninteded consequence

 

OTOH, it makes sense ot have a house sound so people who liked your mid-priced speakers will be tempted to upgrade later on

 

Though house sound doesn't always equate to frequency response curves.

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

What is it if not?

 

Read the Vandersteen literature about time and phase alignment.  This produces certain imaging and soundstage properties that are recognizable over the several speakers in the line I've heard.

 

I don't know whether electrostatic or magnetic planar drivers may be different than dynamic or horn drivers in characteristics other than frequency response.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

 

 

If I understand the question correctly, look at page 14 of that slideshow.  The middle depiction of what they asked people to do is there.  While playing they were asked to select the spectral balance they were subjectively perceiving.  So for 9 bands they put the slider either above or below the line.  If they thought the bass around 50 hz was too much they indicated that on the slider control for 50 hz. Those sliders didn't control or alter anything it was just a survey of how they perceived it.

 

So two questions were answered.  Is flat in room response perceived as flat and even by listeners?  The answer was no.  So which spectral balance was perceived as spectrally flat? So that picture "Perceived versus Measured Spectral Balance" is showing the perceived balance on top of the sloped balance being tested.  The top red slope is the one heard as most flat and even spectrally.  And yes the blue and green one were nearly as good.  So what they are saying at the bottom with the comment is flat in room response is not heard as flat.  Gently sloped response is heard as if it were most flat by human listeners. So perceived flatness is the goal, and a gentle slope is the way to get to that goal.  Flat in room measured response is not heard as flat.

 

So human perception of overall frequency response spectrum is not accurate.

 

Did they try, or are you aware of experiments that have tested, humps or dips in various areas of the audible range?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I have no problem with measurements in that range with a calibrated $100 UMIK-1

 

Glad to hear it, as I plan to purchase one prior to moving in to my new home (whenever it's built, we sell our current home, etc.) to try to get a better idea of how to configure speaker location and listening room in a new and different environment.