rantan Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 So. We should all buy an OLED TV and spends thousands on wine. You will be so pi***d any thing will sound good, but your vision will be blurry so a regular TV would be sufficient anyway. 3
March Audio Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 9:11 AM, Niktech said: How would anyone else know the science is sound when it is self published and not peer reviewed - just take it at face value? I think @klmhas a point. At one time having been employed as a legal editor as well as having an article I jointly co-wrote published in a prestigious legal journal I know the rigours/torture that an authors work is put through before publication, but I also understand why. Expand Sorry no. This is basic electrical theory. Verifiable in a great many places if you care to do some research. 1
Steffen Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 04/06/2023 at 1:49 PM, March Audio said: Well so far these guys have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they have no idea how to perform a blind test. In their previous "blind" tests they were able to see what DUT was playing and openly talked to each other about their findings during the test. Expand I believe if the test tracks were performed by Stevie Wonder it still counts. 1 2
March Audio Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 9:20 AM, rantan said: Which gives no guarantee that his opinions on audio are any more ( or less ) valid than anybody else in the Blogsphere Expand Its not opinions. Its basic and proven electrical theory. 2
The Mad Scientist Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 9:50 AM, rantan said: So. We should all buy an OLED TV and spends thousands on wine. You will be so pi***d any thing will sound good, but your vision will be blurry so a regular TV would be sufficient anyway. Expand Not sure about the OLED, but I'd much rather divert unnecessary audio spend into wine purchases any day of the week. These opinions, however, shouldn't detract from the rest of the article's content. 2
gemini07 Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 I just finished reading the Waldo Nell paper and while I can't adjudicate fully on its technical merit (I don't have his level of qualifications in electronics), I do appreciate the substantial effort and academic rigour involved in both the scope and depth of his analysis. This is probably the most comprehensive and wide-ranging, up-to-date paper I have ever seen on speaker cables. The extent to which others agree with Mr Nell's findings is of course up to them and their own experiences and knowledge, etc, but I personally find his approach sound. And, for what it's worth, I do agree with his results regarding cable directionality (or lack of). I think objective analysis and summary of his paper should be based on its factual evidence and scientific process, rather than reference to his side hobbies and family interests. 3 1
andyr Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 10:53 AM, gemini07 said: I think objective analysis and summary of his paper should be based on its factual evidence and scientific process, rather than reference to his side hobbies and family interests. Expand I agree with you there ... but then, I would say bloggers must have a massive ego (that they think anyone else would be interested in reading their ramblings )!
The Mad Scientist Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 11:26 AM, andyr said: I agree with you there ... but then, I would say bloggers must have a massive ego (that they think anyone else would be interested in reading their ramblings )! Expand I'm sure the same coud be said of some of the ramblings on audio fora. 3 1
Addicted to music Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 9:38 AM, The Mad Scientist said: This argument would be valid were he offering opinions. He's not. He has taken each of the audiophile claims about speaker cables and broken it down using solid, proven electrical engineering Expand Also backs it up with the maths that’s used electrical engineering… 2
andyr Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 11:29 AM, The Mad Scientist said: I'm sure the same could be said of some of the ramblings on audio fora. Expand Absoloootely true. TMS. (Wink, wink!) 1
Addicted to music Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 10:53 AM, gemini07 said: I just finished reading the Waldo Nell paper and while I can't adjudicate fully on its technical merit (I don't have his level of qualifications in electronics), I do appreciate the substantial effort and academic rigour involved in both the scope and depth of his analysis. This is probably the most comprehensive and wide-ranging, up-to-date paper I have ever seen on speaker cables. The extent to which others agree with Mr Nell's findings is of course up to them and their own experiences and knowledge, etc, but I personally find his approach sound. And, for what it's worth, I do agree with his results regarding cable directionality (or lack of). I think objective analysis and summary of his paper should be based on its factual evidence and scientific process, rather than reference to his side hobbies and family interests. Expand There’s is nothing new in it, it’s all electrical engineering, most of this is covered in transmission line theory as part of year 2 of electronics /electrical engineering. 2
Niktech Posted June 16, 2023 Author Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 10:05 AM, March Audio said: It’s not opinions. It’s basic and proven electrical theory. Expand But, that’s not understandable by all. The post above alluded to having at least a year 2 level of understanding. Without peer review this paper is unlikely to be accepted as any more valid and persuasive than another opinion/blogger as per @rantan and @klm Perhaps what he’s written in his paper is very good. In the publishing industry, self published works are never really looked on favourably or carry weight of authority.
March Audio Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 (edited) On 16/06/2023 at 12:26 PM, Niktech said: But, that’s not understandable by all. The post above alluded to having at least a year 2 level of understanding. Without peer review this paper is unlikely to be accepted as any more valid and persuasive than another opinion/blogger as per @rantan and @klm Perhaps what he’s written in his paper is very good. In the publishing industry, self published works are never really looked on favourably or carry weight of authority. Expand Well thats entirely up to any individual to inform themselves on the subject. Plenty of information at an understandable level is available. Even Wiki will cover most of it at a basic level. What someone cant do is say "I dont beleive it" if they have no understanding of the subject. At the end of the day its their prerogative to believe whatever they want to, marketing depts or qualified electronic engineers, but dont argue the toss over it without basis. An important point to make is that its not being said that all cables behave the same. They dont. I hope I have demonstrated this with the graphs above. However, none of it is magic or unknown to science. Its all explainable and characterizable by standard electrical theory. If that shows us that any differences are too small to be realistically audible, then we need to look elsewhere for explanations as to what people perceive. Edited June 16, 2023 by March Audio 3
The Mad Scientist Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 (edited) On 16/06/2023 at 12:44 PM, March Audio said: Well thats entirely up to any individual to inform themselves on the subject. Plenty of information at an understandable level is available. Even Wiki will cover most of it at a basic level. What someone cant do is say "I dont beleive it" if they have no understanding of the subject. At the end of the day its their prerogative to believe whatever they want to, marketing depts or qualified electronic engineers, but dont argue the toss over it without basis. An important point to make is that its not being said that all cables behave the same. They dont. I hope I have demonstrated this with the graphs above. However, none of it is magic or unknown to science. Its all explainable and characterizable by standard electrical theory. If that shows us that any differences are too small to be realistically audible, then we need to look elsewhere for explanations as to what people perceive. Expand And this is the crux of it with audiophilia, in my experience. It's in the "elsewhere" that many refuse to look...... Instead, we are faced with endless arguments that science is wrong. Despite the fact that science and engineering is what makes audio possible in the first place! Edited June 16, 2023 by The Mad Scientist 2
rocky500 Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 (edited) On 16/06/2023 at 2:44 PM, The Mad Scientist said: Instead, we are faced with endless arguments that science is wrong. Despite the fact that science and engineering is what makes audio possible in the first place! Expand This is where you get it all wrong. No one says science is wrong, far from it but the interpretation presented by a lot of people on the net that I think does not lead this hobby in a forward direction. Just my opinion. I think I have linked somewhere to one of the head designers of some of the leading test equipment mentioning that we do not have the equipment good enough yet today to relate measurements to what people perceive and enjoy. It was the company that makes the AP Audio analyzers. Edited June 16, 2023 by rocky500 4
The Mad Scientist Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 4:18 PM, rocky500 said: I think I have linked somewhere to one of the head designers of some of the leading test equipment mentioning that we do not have the equipment good enough yet today to relate measurements to what people perceive and enjoy. Expand I think we're talking at slightly crossed purposes here. I'm not disputing that there are sensory related experiences and preferences we can't measure. You can't measure the taste difference between a Montepulciano and a Shiraz for example. What I'm saying is that people often perceive differences in audio due to changing a component, cable etc. where science and engineering say there can be no perceptible difference. Then we have to look at the psychoacoustic aspects, confirmation bias, expectation bias etc. which is where many refuse to go. Human senses are not reliable in absolute terms. Take the below image, for example. Tiles A and B are different colours, yes? No, their surface colours are exactly the same! How about this one? One dog is blue, the other yellow? Nope, both are exactly the same colour. Back to audio. Some may have seen this video already, but it's a fascinating insight into audio perception and myths. If you want to shortcut to the really confronting audio perception demonstration, skip to Poppy Crum's presentation at 5:27. I firmly believe that in this hobby, a healthy dose of skepticism, and a fundamental distrust of our senses is somewhat essential. I've listened to two different components/cables/tweaks many, many times over the years and convinced myself I could hear differences. Then, when faced with the acid test of level-matched comparisons, when I didn't know which was in use, I couldn't detect any difference. I've wasted a sh!t load of cash on stuff over the years. Interconnects, speaker cables, component upgrades, mains cables, mains conditioners etc. Now, I am guided by science, engineering and measurements. A good acoustic environment provides improvements orders of magnitude greater than any cable ever could. 5 1
Niktech Posted June 16, 2023 Author Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 5:08 PM, The Mad Scientist said: I think we're talking at slightly crossed purposes here. I'm not disputing that there are sensory related experiences and preferences we can't measure. You can't measure the taste difference between a Montepulciano and a Shiraz for example. What I'm saying is that people often perceive differences in audio due to changing a component, cable etc. where science and engineering say there can be no perceptible difference. Then we have to look at the psychoacoustic aspects, confirmation bias, expectation bias etc. which is where many refuse to go. Human senses are not reliable in absolute terms. Take the below image, for example. Tiles A and B are different colours, yes? No, their surface colours are exactly the same! How about this one? One dog is blue, the other yellow? Nope, both are exactly the same colour. Back to audio. Some may have seen this video already, but it's a fascinating insight into audio perception and myths. If you want to shortcut to the really confronting audio perception demonstration, skip to Poppy Crum's presentation at 5:27. I firmly believe that in this hobby, a healthy dose of skepticism, and a fundamental distrust of our senses is somewhat essential. I've listened to two different components/cables/tweaks many, many times over the years and convinced myself I could hear differences. Then, when faced with the acid test of level-matched comparisons, when I didn't know which was in use, I couldn't detect any difference. I've wasted a sh!t load of cash on stuff over the years. Interconnects, speaker cables, component upgrades, mains cables, mains conditioners etc. Now, I am guided by science, engineering and measurements. A good acoustic environment provides improvements orders of magnitude greater than any cable ever could. Expand Interesting. But you haven’t adequately explained your absolute statement - “nope” - that the images perhaps aren’t the colour the viewer perceives them to be. I.e. It requires additional research to validate, or one could accept at face value.
The Mad Scientist Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 (edited) On 16/06/2023 at 8:07 PM, Niktech said: Interesting. But you haven’t adequately explained your absolute statement - “nope” - that the images perhaps aren’t the colour the viewer perceives them to be. I.e. It requires additional research to validate, or one could accept at face value. Expand Hey, if you like, I'll import them into Photoshop and show their objective colour coordinates. Trust me, they're the same colour/shade. Human perception has kept the race alive throughout evolution, but it's our relative rather than absolute perception that has maintained our awareness of the hazards in our surroundings. Edited June 16, 2023 by The Mad Scientist 1
muon* Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 OMG! I haven't seen that old Poppy Crum vid posted here in years! Used to be a go to thing for some here. 1
rantan Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 2:44 PM, The Mad Scientist said: Instead, we are faced with endless arguments that science is wrong Expand Not to be pedantic, but I have never stated that science is wrong, not even once and in this thread particularly, I have always stated that cable cookers and cable burn in are entirely false. Thanks for your realisation .
bob_m_54 Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 4:18 PM, rocky500 said: I think I have linked somewhere to one of the head designers of some of the leading test equipment mentioning that we do not have the equipment good enough yet today to relate measurements to what people perceive and enjoy Expand This is totally correct. But we do have the equipment "good enough" and actually many times more sensitive and accurate than is needed to measure every electrical property possible, of audio equipment, that can impact on the physical output produced. But once those sound waves hit your eardrums it's totally about perception by the individual. 4
March Audio Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 4:18 PM, rocky500 said: This is where you get it all wrong. No one says science is wrong, far from it but the interpretation presented by a lot of people on the net that I think does not lead this hobby in a forward direction. Just my opinion. I think I have linked somewhere to one of the head designers of some of the leading test equipment mentioning that we do not have the equipment good enough yet today to relate measurements to what people perceive and enjoy. It was the company that makes the AP Audio analyzers. Expand Can you link to that quote as I would like to see the context etc. Can you provide some examples where this interpretation is somehow holding back the hobby. 1
March Audio Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 On 17/06/2023 at 12:13 AM, bob_m_54 said: But we do have the equipment "good enough" and actually many times more sensitive and accurate than is needed to measure every electrical property possible, of audio equipment, that can impact on the physical output produced. Expand Indeed. On 17/06/2023 at 12:13 AM, bob_m_54 said: But once those sound waves hit your eardrums it's totally about perception by the individual. Expand Psycoacoustics science is actually very well advanced. See lossy codecs. I think the argument above is only a hair widths away from the straw man of "we don't know everything yet" 3
March Audio Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 5:08 PM, The Mad Scientist said: What I'm saying is that people often perceive differences in audio due to changing a component, cable etc. where science and engineering say there can be no perceptible difference. Then we have to look at the psychoacoustic aspects, confirmation bias, expectation bias etc. which is where many refuse to go. Expand This. 1
The Mad Scientist Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 On 16/06/2023 at 11:04 PM, rantan said: Not to be pedantic, but I have never stated that science is wrong, not even once and in this thread particularly, I have always stated that cable cookers and cable burn in are entirely false. Thanks for your realisation . Expand My comment was a generalsation of the oft held subjectivist perspective. Not aimed at this thread in particular and certainly not at you as an individual. 1
Recommended Posts