Does high quality digital cables matter?

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I don't need to know the identity of a piece of stereo equipment to evaluate it. I just don't need the added effort to set up a blind test because it is irrelevant. I don't mistrust my ears.

While I trust my ears also, I like to verify.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Right! Tests are tools also. Therefore your comment could be rephrased as "each test for a specific job", per established rules of sensory science.

Here's the thing though: Sensory science that you have referenced hasn't stipulated that blinded evaluation is taboo though. I've read some of the research papers including the article on using synthesized voices for phone system attendants. It didn't debunk any blinded testing.

We have a research library here so I think I can get anything that would be behind a paywall. Also there are some really old references that I don't know if they are valid for todays standards. One was about phonographic reproduction vs listening to the same at the live venue it was recorded in. Still nothing devaluing a blind test.

I think you are always going to have some push back by others that are just as smart and in the field. Dr. Olive sure thinks sighted tests are bunk and I think he makes a very solid case in his sighted vs blinded testing.

And before you bring up the monophonic that is a vertical that Toole/Olive spoke to: Comparing speakers. They had a preference for monophonic comparison and not lining up pairs.


Now, What About Television?

I think blinded comparison would be apt for TV's. I think especially apt if you are going to make a significant purchase. Get them calibrated and then compare.

I feel sorry for the buying public that walks into a BB, HH Greg, and just makes a purchase of the brightest set that they have pumped up. But that's on them.

Now only if Pioneer was still producing the Kuro. It would nice to have that option available but the market has spoken.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Here's the thing though: Sensory science that you have referenced hasn't stipulated that blinded evaluation is taboo though.

Why do you (and others) keep repeating this nonsense? I never said blind testing is taboo. I said sensory science says blind testing for certain types of stimuli is inappropriate. Notice the parts in red below:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I want to clarify that I have no problem with blind tests for certain kinds of audio, such as simple narrow bandwidth monophonic signals. As I stated in my A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing thread, blind tests were routinely used by Bell Labs researchers for telephone line and equipment tests. It must be noted that the end users for such equipment were untrained listeners (the general public).

When Bell Labs began developing home stereo systems, the consumer segment was sophisticated trained listeners who were (or who would become) proficient at sound localization and characterization of complex, multi-dimensional sound fields. Simple discrimination tests are not adequate or appropriate for evaluating multi-dimensional stimuli. There are too many distractive elements in a stereo sound field. If a listener, whether trained or not, is asked to simply tell if there is a difference, it is very likely that a distractive element noticed in one trial, but not noticed in a subsequent trial, might be erroneously labeled as a "difference". That is why it is important to learn to catalog, categorize, and quantify all the sonic elements in sound stage. I often do not become aware of differences until I compare notes and sound stage maps among listening trials. I don't listen for differences. I listen to hear and document everything in the sound stage.

I have nothing against blind tests when they are appropriately used. My position, which is based on standard principles of sensory science and Bell Labs technical specifications for stereo, is that blind tests are unnecessary and inappropriate for the kinds of stimuli generated by stereophonic sound fields and they are unnecessary and inappropriate for the trained and experienced listeners required to evaluate stereophonic system and equipment performance.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I've read some of the research papers including the article on using synthesized voices for phone system attendants. It didn't debunk any blinded testing.

Phone system signals are narrowband monophonic. Stereo system signals are wideband stereophonic. Again:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I want to clarify that I have no problem with blind tests for certain kinds of audio, such as simple narrow bandwidth monophonic signals. As I stated in my A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing thread, blind tests were routinely used by Bell Labs researchers for telephone line and equipment tests. It must be noted that the end users for such equipment were untrained listeners (the general public).

Habanero Monk wrote: »

We have a research library here so I think I can get anything that would be behind a paywall. Also there are some really old references that I don't know if they are valid for todays standards. One was about phonographic reproduction vs listening to the same at the live venue it was recorded in. Still nothing devaluing a blind test.

You seem to have a persecution complex regarding the validity of blind tests for stereo. Saying something is used inappropriately is not devaluing it. Saying a fork should not be used as a knife is not devaluing the fork.

Since you don't know whether the standards are still valid today, perhaps you should really try to understand them rather than jumping to conclusions?

The law relating force to mass and acceleration (F=ma) was published by Isaac Newton in the 1600's. Maxwell published his equations describing electric and magnetic fields in the 1800s. Those are some REALLY OLD references. Is it your belief that a scientific principle becomes invalid at a certain age?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I think you are always going to have some push back by others that are just as smart and in the field. Dr. Olive sure thinks sighted tests are bunk and I think he makes a very solid case in his sighted vs blinded testing.

Is that the same Dr. Olive who did all the famous monophonic tests? Are you aware that this is a stereo audio forum?

I don't mind push back at all, especially when people are making some sense and can scientifically justify their views. I have corresponded briefly with Dr. Olive about this subject and I have corresponded at length with Dr. Olive's mentor, Dr. Floyd Toole on this subject.

One thing you keep in mind about me is that I have no stereo equipment to sell. I am not receiving a paycheck from a corporation that makes stereo equipment. The corporate entity (Harmon International) that Pays Dr. Olive (and Dr. Toole prior to his retirement) is not a high end audiophile company. Harmon is more focused on pro audio now. Some of their brands used to be highly regarded audiophile brands, but that is not the case now. I wouldn't expect a pro audio company's employees to have a lot of interest in teaching the general public about critical evaluation skills for stereo. They would essentially be teaching their potential customers to evaluate and choose other, higher performing, brands.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I am still waiting on the scientific justification for using blind discrimination tests for stereophonic sound. Do you have any?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

And before you bring up the monophonic that is a vertical that Toole/Olive spoke to: Comparing speakers. They had a preference for monophonic comparison and not lining up pairs.

OK. What relevance do Toole and Olive's monophonic tests have to stereophonic system performance?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I think blinded comparison would be apt for TV's.

Sure. Think whatever you like. I just said there is no scientific justification for blind testing TV's and stereos with trained subjects. I welcome you to present the credible scientific evidence against that.

villian

Hey Darque Knight,

Aren't you the guy who cooks his wires in an oven? Just wondering.

Phatattack

villian wrote: »

Hey Darque Knight,

Aren't you the guy who cooks his wires in an oven? Just wondering.

Try the microwave.....

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

Hey Darque Knight,

Aren't you the guy who cooks his wires in an oven? Just wondering.

On the chance you are serious, I hope to God he does not answer this.

Much of this thread has turned into a nightmare of a Ping-Pong match; like the kind where you're "opponent" is just like practicing against a folded table, in that you will never win, and at best can only hope for a tie.

villian

I am dead serious, and the moment he answers it will be a clear win. Tell me, do you actually know anyone else who cooks their wires?

The more interesting question is this: At the end of the day is "Stereophonic Audio" an outdated, antiquated system of sound reproduction? Serious question.

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

Hey Darque Knight,

Aren't you the guy who cooks his wires in an oven? Just wondering.

What a stupid question. What does that have to do with anything?

If that question doesn't meet the definition of trolling then nothing does.

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

I am dead serious, and the moment he answers it will be a clear win. Tell me, do you actually know anyone else who cooks their wires?

The more interesting question is this: At the end of the day is "Stereophonic Audio" an outdated, antiquated system of sound reproduction? Serious question.

Our hearing and seeing is stereophonic. Even surround sound is an evolution of stereophonic sound. Reasons why, things like "phantom" center channels can and do work as well or better than a dedicated center channel speaker.
Sound is still coming from the left and the right side of our heads regardless of whether it is the front left or rear right.

But that is a discussion for another thread. And a discussion that seems to be well beyond your fairly shallow understanding.

As for "cooking" cables, you are plain and simply an idiot for taking the term literally. And there are countless studies on conditioning dielectrics by running a constant or variable current through a cable.

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

I am dead serious, and the moment he answers it will be a clear win. Tell me, do you actually know anyone else who cooks their wires?

Sure, in a sense we all do, every time we listen to our rigs. Most folks refer to it as burn-in, but the Cable Cooker is, as far as I know, a way to simply speed up that process.

Now all the naysayers who would never even consider trying this for themselves will dismiss it as heresy.

headrott

polrbehr wrote: »

Sure, in a sense we all do, every time we listen to our rigs. Most folks refer to it as burn-in, but the Cable Cooker is, as far as I know, a way to simply speed up that process.

Now all the naysayers who would never even consider trying this for themselves will dismiss it as heresy.

Exacly what I was thinking.........

villian

You guys have all missed my point..in that DK *literally* cooks his wires..IN an oven.

I'm not talking about regular old fashioned usage based burn in. Notice how quiet he's been since I asked that rhetorical question? Crickets.

Habanero Monk

The computer is setup, installed, and tested out. Using JRiver as the media player. I can play a song, switch out any of the three cables and there is zero drop in playback.

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

You guys have all missed my point..in that DK *literally* cooks his wires..IN an oven.

I'm not talking about regular old fashioned usage based burn in. Notice how quiet he's been since I asked that rhetorical question? Crickets.

Nope...we didn't miss any point. Everyone knows that you quite *literally* are an idiot.
And I am not talking about regular old fashioned idiot based on stupidity. I mean full-on drooling idiot.

If you can cite *ONE* single post where DK actually says that he puts his cables inside of an oven and turns it on...oh wait...you can't. :rolleyes:

But keep trying cupcake.

ZLTFUL

Habanero Monk wrote: »

The computer is setup, installed, and tested out. Using JRiver as the media player. I can play a song, switch out any of the three cables and there is zero drop in playback.

Switching out cables? I thought the concept was to not have any interaction with the physical cables once everything was set up? 3 identical NICs to allow for 3 cables that meet spec and simply enabling/disabling the associate NIC to "switch" cables. This eliminates the possibility of a cable not being seated fully.

As an aside, either of those weekends in July work fine.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Switching out cables? I thought the concept was to not have any interaction with the physical cables once everything was set up? 3 identical NICs to allow for 3 cables that meet spec and simply enabling/disabling the associate NIC to "switch" cables. This eliminates the possibility of a cable not being seated fully.

As an aside, either of those weekends in July work fine.

I didn't want to assume anything which is why I posted where I am at with all this. Some people may have wanted to see only one physical cable connected.

It's pretty easy actually and I didn't have any problems seating the cable.

tonyb

villian wrote: »

You guys have all missed my point..in that DK *literally* cooks his wires..IN an oven.

I'm not talking about regular old fashioned usage based burn in. Notice how quiet he's been since I asked that rhetorical question? Crickets.

....and your missing the point on why he won't answer you. Dear lord....if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

villian

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I thought the concept was to not have any interaction with the physical cables once everything was set up?

Having no cable eliminates the possibility of any interaction caused by the physcial cables

It also proves all you cable queens wrong, but I'll wait till later to hear about that one.

Habanero Monk

Here is the demonstration video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp3WtOeDnE

Habanero Monk

villian wrote: »

Having no cable eliminates the possibility of any interaction caused by the physcial cables

That is along my thoughts. If I physically remove the cable then there can't be any shenanigans declared. I mean the fargin' cable is just hanging there.

badchad

I may have missed it, but is there a third party to verify cables are hooked/unhooked?

ZLTFUL

That was my effort to make it unnecessary.
3 cables, 3 identical NICs with no physical interaction with the cables.
Unplugging/plugging cable over 30 times increases the risks of a cable not being seated correctly. Period. I have seen it countless times when cable monkeys are terminating and shoving cables into patch panels, 1 or 5 inevitably end up not fully seated.

Anyway, the layout was agreed to very early on in this discussion. Let's not go changing things up now.

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

Having no cable eliminates the possibility of any interaction caused by the physcial cables

It also proves all you cable queens wrong, but I'll wait till later to hear about that one.

You try so hard and yet fail so miserably. You really have nothing don't you?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

That was my effort to make it unnecessary.
3 cables, 3 identical NICs with no physical interaction with the cables.
Unplugging/plugging cable over 30 times increases the risks of a cable not being seated correctly. Period. I have seen it countless times when cable monkeys are terminating and shoving cables into patch panels, 1 or 5 inevitably end up not fully seated.

Anyway, the layout was agreed to very early on in this discussion. Let's not go changing things up now.

Just offering you the option of knowing only one is connected. I'm fine with it either way.

DarqueKnight

As I think back on my elementary and high school years, in some classes there was always one or two individuals, the "class clowns", who could not perform academically and who made attempts to disrupt the academic process as a way of diverting attention away from their intellectual inadequacy. They really wanted to participate in intellectual class discussions and they were quite envious of the articulate and academically gifted students who could. Since they were unable to rise to the level of class discussions, and since they were starved for attention, their only recourse was to attempt to dumb things down to their level.

They would sit in the back and mock the good students and they would ask the teacher stupid questions that had nothing to do with the subject matter. Sometimes they were tolerated for the occasional laughs they generated. More often, other means were used to mitigate the problem. The sad thing is that the class clowns never caught on to the fact that people were laughing at them and not with them.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As I think back on my elementary and high school years, in some classes there was always one or two individuals, the "class clowns", who could not perform academically and who made attempts to disrupt the academic process as a way of diverting attention away from their intellectual inadequacy. They really wanted to participate in intellectual class discussions and they were quite envious of the articulate and academically gifted students who could. Since they were unable to rise to the level of class discussions, and since they were starved for attention, their only recourse was to attempt to dumb things down to their level.

They would sit in the back and mock the good students and they would ask the teacher stupid questions that had nothing to do with the subject matter. Sometimes they were tolerated for the occasional laughs they generated. More often, other means were used to mitigate the problem. The sad thing is that the class clowns never caught on to the fact that people were laughing at them and not with them.

Also what I was thinking.......

Habanero Monk

Been thinking about disabling the NIC's. We are only talking 30 runs. This needs to be beyond any reproach.

The best way to go forward is a true open air connection. If the NIC is logically disabled but physically connected I don't want anyone saying that there could still be noise or something to that affect entering into the equation.

The likely hood of having a problematic re-connection in 30 tries is minuscule in deference to the point being made that the cables need to be truly physically removed.

So yes, for the sake of testing integrity, and to answer a common complaint the cable advocates will have, I am going to reverse just a bit on how the NIC's get enabled / disabled.

I've already done at least 30-50 connections playing around with this.

headrott

While, I can appreciate the trouble you are going through to set up this blind test and make sure it's fair, efficient, and "get rid of the bias". Isn't it easier to simply listen for yourself and judge for yourself to distinguish any differences between Ethernet (or any other cable(s))? Or, is/are your motive(s) not as pure as you are trying to make it out to be?

BlueFox

Yes. As I said many posts ago, this is a BS test. All it can demonstrate is that in this test scenario one person can or can not tell a difference between the cables used. No matter which way it turns out the result can not be used beyond this particular setup.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

While, I can appreciate the trouble you are going through to set up this blind test and make sure it's fair, efficient, and "get rid of the bias". Isn't it easier to simply listen for yourself and judge for yourself to distinguish any differences between Ethernet (or any other cable(s))? Or, is/are your motive(s) not as pure as you are trying to make it out to be?

I spent time with my AKG 701's and this setup going over my sound interface. If there is a difference to be heard it's beyond me.

JRiver even has a nifty option of "Play file out of RAM". They can use up to 1GB of RAM and move the complete file to RAM. So one long initial fetch vs a bunch of smaller fetches.

I've copied an entire CD over the wire in ~7 seconds. And that wouldn't even fill the 1GB of RAM being used. After that file is in memory it's the CODEC's turn. Again in first 7 seconds of your favorite track the entire album can be brought over and played from RAM. Disconnect the Ethernet cable for the entire album.

In the video I shot I didn't have that feature enabled. I just used the default prefetch. You can check it out in any of the popular media players (Foobar, Media Monkey, JRiver). They expose the various audio subsystems' native feature set.

You could go through the machinations I have just posted a video about. Be honest with yourself and have someone pull the plug as you kick back and listen on some nice headphones.

Please keep in mind I am not speaking about the audibility about any other type of cable. Just Ethernet.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes. As I said many posts ago, this is a BS test. All it can demonstrate is that in this test scenario one person can or can not tell a difference between the cables used. No matter which way it turns out the result can not be used beyond this particular setup.

I've posted the video of the setup working. Flawlessly. Nothing BS about a box with zero switching latency. The song just keeps on playing.

And I agree:

I'm not intending this to be an indication of reliable discernment outside of the person that believes they can pick Ethernet cabling as it relates to audibility.