Does high quality digital cables matter?

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

Or, is/are your motive(s) not as pure as you are trying to make it out to be?

As long as the test conditions are mutually agreed upon and mutually honored, I don't think motives matter.

BlueFox wrote: »

No matter which way it turns out the result can not be used beyond this particular setup.

I think that is also true of most stereo equipment reviews. All we can take away from any small sample, short duration, stereo equipment test is the potential result under a given set of conditions.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

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

I think it's a good experiment topic.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

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.

I do not listen to audio through a computer system (with lower quality resistors, capacitors, etc.), from a buffered RAM source as you do. I have already stated (numerous times) that a buffered, RAM sourced, computer generated audio file will reduce resolution and detail making it more difficult to distingush differences between cables (Ethernet or otherwise). It does not suprise me that you cannot distingish differences in a computer audio system, especially with regards to listening to headphones where image weight and soundstage are not as clearly defined.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As long as the test conditions are mutually agreed upon and mutually honored, I don't think motives matter.

Yes, I agree that motives don't matter with regards to experiment results (In this single case) if the test conditions are mutually agreed upon. Unfortunately, as I brought up near the beginning of this Ethernet cable debate, that it is Habanero Monk's computer system, BJ Ethernet cable, and test conditions that are being suggested. It has yet to be determined if this will be the final test conditions. My suggestion of HM's motives lead to his suggestions of how the test be conducted and one (motives) directly affects the other (test conditions). That is what I am suggesting here. In TRUE SCIENCE, that would not be the case. Motives would not affect the test condtions and/or result(s) you are trying to achieve.

That said, if both parties agree to listening to buffered audio files from a computer then it is what it is............

tonyb

In some aspects, audio has not changed at all in 40 years. 15 pages of the merits of digital cables making a difference in sound....or not.

Seriously guys ? When all one has to do is try a few different ones for themselves, if you can hear a difference....cool. If not....also cool and keep rocking what you have. Done.

BTW DK....love the analogy of the classroom clown. Gonna have to swipe that one from ya.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

I do not listen to audio through a computer system (with lower quality resistors, capacitors, etc.), from a buffered RAM source as you do. I have already stated (numerous times) that a buffered, RAM sourced, computer generated audio file will reduce resolution and detail making it more difficult to distingush differences between cables (Ethernet or otherwise). It does not suprise me that you cannot distingish differences in a computer audio system, especially with regards to listening to headphones where image weight and soundstage are not as clearly defined.

I don't even know what to say to artists and recording engineers that use DAWs'. Your headphone comment strikes me as particularly uninformed.

I know you are one of the gang so no one here is going to point out your ignorance. There are a lot of people here doing computer based audio.

headrott wrote: »

Yes, I agree that motives don't matter with regards to experiment results (In this single case) if the test conditions are mutually agreed upon. Unfortunately, as I brought up near the beginning of this Ethernet cable debate, that it is Habanero Monk's computer system, BJ Ethernet cable, and test conditions that are being suggested.

What does this have to do with the price of tea?

headrott wrote: »

It has yet to be determined if this will be the final test conditions. My suggestion of HM's motives lead to his suggestions of how the test be conducted and one (motives) directly affects the other (test conditions). That is what I am suggesting here. In TRUE SCIENCE, that would not be the case. Motives would not affect the test condtions and/or result(s) you are trying to achieve.

If you have a better, some how, unmotivated: motherboard, Intel NIC, 8GB Kingston RAM, PNY SSD, ASROCK Mainboard, AMD CPU, Radeon video card, Microsoft OS, JRiver Media Player way of doing this... Well I'm all ears.

Science is not motive driven? That's a new one.

ZLTFUL

One of the few times I am going to agree with Monk on something...so everyone take note of the date and the time. :redface:
But a good headphone setup can be every bit as good as a good stereo rig. And while the soundstage is moved to more "inside" of the listeners head, there is definitely solid imaging and soundstage to be had.

In headrott's defense, he is correct in pointing out that this experiment is in no way neutral but is weighted very heavily in favor of you, Monk. Not copping out in any way but you have dismissed pretty much every suggestion I have made towards the test and how it is going to be executed. Most recently, the NIC thing.
My other issue is that by "playing out of RAM" you are pretty much taking the Ethernet cables out of the equation. I would prefer a direct/constant stream from source (NAS) to DAC. My assertion isn't that I can hear a difference between RAM to RAM but that I can hear the difference between which cable a song is being streamed over.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

One of the few times I am going to agree with Monk on something...so everyone take note of the date and the time. :redface:
But a good headphone setup can be every bit as good as a good stereo rig. And while the soundstage is moved to more "inside" of the listeners head, there is definitely solid imaging and soundstage to be had.

In headrott's defense, he is correct in pointing out that this experiment is in no way neutral but is weighted very heavily in favor of you, Monk. Not copping out in any way but you have dismissed pretty much every suggestion I have made towards the test and how it is going to be executed. Most recently, the NIC thing.
My other issue is that by "playing out of RAM" you are pretty much taking the Ethernet cables out of the equation. I would prefer a direct/constant stream from source (NAS) to DAC. My assertion isn't that I can hear a difference between RAM to RAM but that I can hear the difference between which cable a song is being streamed over.

I need to you list any items that are material in merit outside of physically making a disconnect. You wanted cable A/B/C vs A/B: You got it. You wanted 30 trials: You got it. You wanted your own DAC: You got it.

These are all concessions that I made as a deviation from the original proposal. You will only have 4 incorrect guesses allowable out of 30 rolls of the dice. 86% period.

To say that this is somehow weighted in my favor is misleading. At best.

On the playback stream. There is simply no direct way to 'Play' from an Ethernet cable. Everything is buffered and the amount of buffering depends on the sub-system: MS's WASAPI or ASIO. The buffering is also tweakable like a many things in the operating system. You would have to take up that issue with Microsoft or a particular vendors ASIO implemenation.

I can't change how the fundamentals work. I can only work within their confines.

I'm not going to use the 'Play from RAM' function in JRiver. Do you want me to use Media Monkey? Although I don't like it's layout it is serviceable.

ZLTFUL

nbrowser wrote: »

Just a monkey wrench question here, is there any DAC or streaming device out there that doesn't buffer the data but converts it on the fly via ethernet ? I know stupid question but I'm allowed to ask one the odd time.

You are correct in that there is a certain amount of unavoidable buffering. Even CDPs have internal buffers. That is unavoidable.
But to buffer an entire song is the equivalent of removing the ethernet cables from the equation period.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I don't even know what to say to artists and recording engineers that use DAWs'. Your headphone comment strikes me as particularly uninformed.

Your comment is actually the particularly uninformed one.

Most recording artists and recording engineers have no interest whatsoever in producing audiophile quality recordings or even above average quality recordings. This is one of the greatest frustrations of being an audiophile: you assemble a high resolution stereo system but so many of your favorite recordings are low resolution due to poor recording practices.

Before the digital era, the standard practice was to use tons of compression so that recordings would "sound good" on AM and FM radio. In the digital era, low resolution MP3s dominate the market. High resolution digital music files and SACD are niche markets. Most consumers don't care about sound quality, therefore most music producers, engineers, and recording artists don't care either.

Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), like any recording production tool, come in various levels of quality. You can even get versions that run on a smartphone. Computer audio generally has a poor reputation with audiophiles because of the generally low production values.

With regard to the headphone comment, you again appear to be misinformed because headphone sound is not stereo sound, it is binaural sound, and therefore unnatural because people don't listen to music under normal circumstances with one ear isolated from the other. As I said in my review of the Philips' Golden Ear Challenge, the tests were designed to be done with headphones, but some of the exercises were easier to hear when listening through my computer's stereo loudspeakers:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The test is designed to be taken with headphones. For some tests, such as spatial impression and timbre, I would use the computer's loudspeakers. I am not a regular user of headphones.

You continue to display a common trait among blind test for stereo proponents: a lack of basic knowledge of how stereo works. Indeed, some of the most published and most well known stereo blind test proponents, like Floyd Toole, Stanley Lips-h- i- t- z, and Arnold B. Krueger, don't even like stereo because they consider it inferior to monophonic sound. (Part of Stanley's last name was hyphenated because the forum censoring software thinks it is a "bad word" and will star it out.)

ZLTFUL wrote: »

One of the few times I am going to agree with Monk on something...so everyone take note of the date and the time. :redface:

But a good headphone setup can be every bit as good as a good stereo rig. And while the soundstage is moved to more "inside" of the listeners head, there is definitely solid imaging and soundstage to be had.

It us unfortunate that you picked this particular point to agree with HM.

Stereo sound is based on the same sound localization processes that humans use everyday, whether listening to music or trying to determine the location of an ambulance siren. The human listening mechanism is not designed to have the sound stage moved to the inside of our heads.

I agree that a good headphone setup can provide the same, or even a higher, level of subjective listening satisfaction as a good stereo rig, but when evaluated on strictly stereophonic performance parameters, the headphones will always come up lacking. That is because headphones are not a stereophonic sound medium. They are a binaural sound medium. That is why the vast majority of audiophiles prefer to listen with stereo loudspeakers rather than headphones.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

In headrott's defense, he is correct in pointing out that this experiment is in no way neutral but is weighted very heavily in favor of you, Monk. Not copping out in any way but you have dismissed pretty much every suggestion I have made towards the test and how it is going to be executed. Most recently, the NIC thing.

My other issue is that by "playing out of RAM" you are pretty much taking the Ethernet cables out of the equation. I would prefer a direct/constant stream from source (NAS) to DAC. My assertion isn't that I can hear a difference between RAM to RAM but that I can hear the difference between which cable a song is being streamed over.

One of my chief complaints about stereo blind tests is that they are usually setup in a manner unrepresentative of how the listener listens to stereo. It is as if the blind tester really has no confidence in their methods and always need to stack the deck in their favor.

If you two are not going to set up the test in a manner representative of how you actually listen, why do the test?

HM said one of the reasons he is hesitant to do tests at Polkfest is that he would not want to test people on systems they are unfamiliar with. However, for this test, it appears he is doing exactly that: testing someone on a system they are unfamiliar with.

ZLTFUL

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I need you list any items that are material in merit outside of physically making a disconnect. You wanted cable A/B/C vs A/B: You got it.

Uh...actually, you came up with the ABC/AB thing. I only ever wanted 3 and 3 only. You also took it upon yourself to provide your cables when I said from the offset that I would be happy to provide *all* of it. Cables (certified through Kurt of course), NICs, DAC, etc. You volunteered to provide a computer.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You wanted 30 trials: You got it.

You're the one that came up with the arbitrary 10 "runs" per cable. I offered 3 cables. Yeah...and...uh...math. :rolleyes:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You wanted your own DAC: You got it.

This goes back to the above mentioned me providing everything for the test. Equipment I am familiar with. Equipment I have countless hours of listening to. Why would I volunteer to experiment with system components I know nothing about?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

These are all concessions that I made as a deviation from the original proposal. You will only have 4 incorrect guesses allowable out of 30 rolls of the dice. 86% period.

To say that this is somehow weighted in my favor is misleading. At best.

Vegas likes them odds. But to say that isn't weighted in your favor is naive at best. Whether I accepted that or not does not negate the fact that a simple majority would balance the "weight" of the experiment while 86% places it firmly, squarely, unequivocally and blatantly in your favor. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure that one out.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

On the playback stream. There is simply no direct way to 'Play' from an Ethernet cable. Everything is buffered and the amount of buffering depends on the sub-system: MS's WASAPI or ASIO. The buffering is also tweakable like a many things in the operating system. You would have to take up that issue with Microsoft or a particular vendors ASIO implemenation.

As I explained to nbrowser above, I am fully aware that there is no way to completely eliminate buffering. But my argument is to minimize it to the lowest possible level and to get as close to a "pure" stream as possible. This is going to be where the cable is going to have the most impact. Arguably a tick in my favor but less so when you consider that the whole point of the experiment is to determine if a *CABLE* identification can be made.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I can't change how the fundamentals work. I can only work within their confines.

Again, not asking you to but I am asking that we get as close to a "live" stream as possible.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not going to use the 'Play from RAM' function in JRiver. Do you want me to use Media Monkey? Although I don't like it's layout it is serviceable.

I use Media Monkey so I am familiar with it. JRiver, I am not. I will agree that the layout of Media Monkey is clunky though.

It really boils down to you stating that because *you* can't hear a difference that there can't be. Just like the other senses, hearing can be naturally better in some over others. It can also be trained. Just like the other senses.
Why do you think there are professional perfumers/smellers?
How about professional taste testers?
Professionals who can feel things others can't (the paint finish inspectors for high end sports and luxury car manufacturers come to mind)?
What makes it so unrealistic to think that with all of those senses that it is impossible that there are people out there that can hear better than you?

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Your comment is actually the particularly uninformed one.

Most recording artists and recording engineers have no interest whatsoever in producing audiophile quality recordings or even above average quality recordings. This is one of the greatest frustrations of being an audiophile: you assemble a high resolution stereo system but so many of your favorite recordings are low resolution due to poor recording practices.

Before the digital era, the standard practice was to use tons of compression so that recordings would "sound good" on AM and FM radio. In the digital era, low resolution MP3s dominate the market. High resolution digital music files and SACD are niche markets. Most consumers don't care about sound quality, therefore most music producers, engineers, and recording artists don't care either.

Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), like any recording production tool, come in various levels of quality. You can even get versions that run on a smartphone. Computer audio generally has a poor reputation with audiophiles because of the generally low production values.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you like bending items to appear as absolutes.

You want to point out the ability to edit audio on a Smartphone fine. I'll point out BSS, Lynx, Amarra, RME, Benchmark, Apogee etc.

You want to point out compressed music mastered by engineers for low-fi audience. That's perfectly fine. I'll point out my recordings of Mahler, Dvorak, Rachmaninoff, Holtz, DeBussy then onto Steely Dan, some nice Hendrix remasters, Eric Johnson, Pat Metheny, Eagles, Michael Hedges, .... The list goes on of well recorded and mixed/mastered albums in my collection.

Are all of them gems, most certainly not. Are all of them dogs, most certainly not.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

With regard to the headphone comment

What did I say exactly about headphones again? Can you find and quote me please?

Headphones are fine for critical evaluation. One of the benefits is they have lower distortion characteristics than most well designed speakers. I know headphones are binaural. That is why only biaural recordings work on headphones and not on speakers. They rely on the ears receiving direct input and uncoupled from each other.

Headphones also take the room out of the equation. We are measuring the ability to discern audible differences in cables. This could be done Stereo, Monophonic, Headphones. If there is a difference it should be apparent across these devices in various configurations if they are of high enough resolution. I'm not evaluating stereophonic performance. I'm just administering the test. ZDTFUL can use his own evaluation methods. I didn't preclude him from this. All I said was his setup.

I've never heard a 2.0 stereo come close to the soundstage and environmental element placement that a well mastered binaural recording does. Pretty trippy. Dolby Atmos hopefully will also do a killer job in a properly setup room with environmental placement of sound elements. You did bring up sound field placement, No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FwDa7TWHHc

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

One of my chief complaints about stereo blind tests is that they are usually setup in a manner unrepresentative of how the listener listens to stereo.

Can you find where I made a determination as to how he will listen?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It is as if the blind tester really has no confidence in their methods and always need to stack the deck in their favor.

One, I'm not blind in this scenario. It is SBT. I'm not even testing. ZLTFUL is. Two, anyone is free to point out any gross errors in my setup or testing rig.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

HM said one of the reasons he is hesitant to do tests at Polkfest is that he would not want to test people on systems they are unfamiliar with.

Wait one second. I never said I was hesitant in that regard. Up till this thread I have seen nothing but entrenchment about doing this in your own listening environment.

The entire point is I offered at something like the PETT Summer Festival to get some seriously high resolution gear together and setup in a hotel room somewhere. Nothing but blow back over that. So what do I do? Offer to bring it to someones own listening room.

Any testing environment, by shear nature of testing, is not a natural act. Sleep studies, drug studies, the Pepsi blind taste test. None of these are natural. I don't recall the last time I stood in the middle of a mall drinking sugared, carbonated product, from little plastic dixie cups.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

However, for this test, it appears he is doing exactly that: testing someone on a system they are unfamiliar with.

All you can do is try to accommodate the setup to close as natural as possible. You do understand that the DAC is receiving a bitstream correct? Are you going to make the argument that a modern computer, with minimal OS and Application software/services foot print can't accomplish this task?

It will be over his AQ USB cable and any CAT5 and unknown high end Ethernet cable ,as long as they are certified, that he brings.
Plus my BJC cable. It will be his DAC, his room, his speaker/s, headphone etc...

How do you know the computer I am bringing isn't better or worse than the setup he has?

txcoastal1

Here is a link with Paul Hales interview much is in relevance to HT, but there are other interesting points about how we listen. This of course is all subjective just like music.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478854/the-science-of-the-room-with-paul-hales

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

It isn't that difficult. 3 different "levels" of cable connected to 3 identical NICs. Plain and simple.
Your BJC, my Cat5 Belkin and my "high dollar" Cat6 cable.
We make some baseline comparisons to "get my bearings" and then I tell you, out of 30 runs if it is A, B or C. (I am upping it to 30 to give each cable a "fair shake".)
I am allowed to take notes on each of the baselines and am able to take up to 3 complete albums per cable to generate the baseline.
My proposal of 3 cables was simply to lower the chances of me simply guessing correctly. Taking my chances of "guessing" from 50/50 to a 33.333333...% chance of simply guessing right. In reality, I am weighting the test in your favor. Not sure why that doesn't appeal to you.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

You're the one that came up with the arbitrary 10 "runs" per cable. I offered 3 cables. Yeah...and...uh...math. :rolleyes:

It's 30 rolls of the dice. Not 10 runs of each cable. If they happen to average ten 1/2, ten 2/3, and ten 4/6 rolls then so be it. Average distribution. I assume a fair shake is as reasonable as even distribution of dice roll.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

This goes back to the above mentioned me providing everything for the test. Equipment I am familiar with. Equipment I have countless hours of listening to. Why would I volunteer to experiment with system components I know nothing about?

Because I need to be familiar with the testing rig. It's just a point to practicalities. If you want, and have a machine that can accommodate three NIC's I'll just bring a 90 day Win7 eval CD, three Intel NIC's, 120GB SSD and my Cisco Switch.

Do you have ANY objection to those items? I can setup and configure Friday. The Intel NIC's are PCIe 1x. So if you have a computer what is it's configuration? What is the mainboard? CPU, RAM, etc...?

As to the Intel CT series NIC's: They allow for LAG on the Cisco switch. It's a way to play back without interruption while cables are being swapped in/out. So the NIC's and switch have to stay. I haven't heard any push-back on the demonstration video that I posted.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Vegas likes them odds. But to say that isn't weighted in your favor is naive at best. Whether I accepted that or not does not negate the fact that a simple majority would balance the "weight" of the experiment while 86% places it firmly, squarely, unequivocally and blatantly in your favor. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure that one out.

What is weighted in my favor? You are the one stipulating that you can stone cold tell me if it's your Belkin CAT5(e?), high end CAT6, or my BJC CAT6. It's a slam dunk for you. In light of your claims my 26 out of 30 (30 being YOUR number) is concession to you.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

As I explained to nbrowser above, I am fully aware that there is no way to completely eliminate buffering. But my argument is to minimize it to the lowest possible level and to get as close to a "pure" stream as possible. This is going to be where the cable is going to have the most impact. Arguably a tick in my favor but less so when you consider that the whole point of the experiment is to determine if a *CABLE* identification can be made.

Again, not asking you to but I am asking that we get as close to a "live" stream as possible.

Fair enough.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I use Media Monkey so I am familiar with it. JRiver, I am not. I will agree that the layout of Media Monkey is clunky though.

My suggestion of JRiver is that a lot of people talk about it's sound superiority. Let me play with Media Monkey.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

What makes it so unrealistic to think that with all of those senses that it is impossible that there are people out there that can hear better than you?

I didn't say that is or is not the case. What I am saying is we are talking about packet driven data. I've spent time on my headphones with both the BJC cables and a cable I put together and I can't follow the bouncing ball even sighted and knowing which is playing and that a switch was indeed made.

BlueFox

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But to buffer an entire song is the equivalent of removing the ethernet cables from the equation period.

Earlier in this thread, Mr Monk made an interesting statement asking if downloaded files from HD Tracks, etc. can be corrupted. That got me wondering if they could pick up jitter as the signal went through the various transitions of electrical to optical to electrical to Ethernet to whatever before it finally arrived at your house. So, I posed that question on a number of forums, and the answer is no, except for one area.

That area is at your home as the digital signal goes into either the DAC, or the device feeding the DAC. In this case, due to the possible deviation in detecting where the signal transitions from a 0 to a 1, or a 1 to a 0, jitter can be introduced. This brings us back to the beginning. Depending on how bad an Ethernet cable attenuates these signals, and still be within spec, it is possible for jitter to be introduced. A better cable with less attenuation will, most likely, result in less timing errors for the DAC. While the CRC will be correct, the file can have jitter. Of course, if the receiving device that will change the Ethernet signal into the file has sloppy hardware then the problem can be worse, better, or the same, due to the +/- tolerance built into the spec.

villian

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.

I think you're still confused so let me clear this one up..

What habanero is saying is that the sound will be playing with or without a cable connected..eliminating any chance for interaction from varying cables. Therefore it's irrelevant as to which cable is used, or how many are used, and at what times they are used. Unplugging/plugging doesn't matter. Nothing will matter. That's the point. Digital. Not analog. Enjoy the learning experience..it's going to be truly enlightening for you guys!

ZLTFUL

Before we go any further, I need you to answer one question. And I need you to not only be honest with us in your answer but also with yourself. Because it weighs very heavily as to the overall results of this "experiment".

What if it turns out that I can do what I say, that I meet your quota of 86% correct and that I can, without any reasonable doubt do what I say and can identify which cable is being used, will this change your mind? Will you suddenly change your belief that even "packet driven data" and how it sounds cannot be influenced by the cable? Because if it isn't going to change your mind, what's the point besides some internet pissing match?
Frankly, I am not in it to prove anything to myself. *I* know what I know. I am not in it for the DAC. I am not in it for the cash. I am in it to change your mind and if, even after proving that I can indeed hear a difference, you refuse to believe what I prove, then what is the point?

We can bicker back and forth all day from here to eternity about the minute details of the test and play the he said, she said game but in the end, it comes down to a willingness to accept something other than our own preconceived opinions.

I guess what it really boils down to is, if I fail, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong but if I succeed, are you willing to admit that you were mistaken? Are are you going to blow it all off as some great feat of uncanny luck?

Habanero Monk

DSkip wrote: »

Curiuos.... what if you could? Would you then need a DBT to verify that what you're hearing is true?

No, I would just need someone to administer a SBT. I don't care if the person knows what cables they are swapping for me. They probably could care less. Just follow the #'s indicated on the dice.

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

I think you're still confused so let me clear this one up..

What habanero is saying is that the sound will be playing with or without a cable connected..eliminating any chance for interaction from varying cables. Therefore it's irrelevant as to which cable is used, or how many are used, and at what times they are used. Unplugging/plugging doesn't matter. Nothing will matter. That's the point. Digital. Not analog. Enjoy the learning experience..it's going to be truly enlightening for you guys!

You are most assuredly the one who is confused.
See, the fault in not actually reading and following a thread is you miss important facts like the whole purpose of the experiment being to determine if a file transferred over one cable versus another, both within spec, can be audibly different. so the cables are a VITAL part of the equation since the cables are the argument. The goal is to get to as close to a live stream as is humanly possible.

Once again, all you have done is spewed your ignorance and proven yourself to be nothing more than a sad little troll. Trying reading more and being retarded less.

badchad

Habanero Monk wrote: »

What is weighted in my favor? You are the one stipulating that you can stone cold tell me if it's your Belkin CAT5(e?), high end CAT6, or my BJC CAT6. It's a slam dunk for you. In light of your claims my 26 out of 30 (30 being YOUR number) is concession to you.

I'm not a statistician, so I'll keep my comments broad. However, I would encourage you to work out the trials beforehand.

For example, in a straight A/B discrimination (where the odds of guessing correctly are 50% or a coins flip), I believe one would need to correctly guess 8/10 to reach statistical significance. Many would think 7/10 might be "good", but it doesn't reach criteria if there are only two variables.

I'd hate for you two to go to the trouble of doing this without having the correct # of trials, etc.

ken brydson

ZLTFUL wrote: »

.
Trying reading more and being retarded less.

Sig material right there!

ZLTFUL

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It's 30 rolls of the dice. Not 10 runs of each cable. If they happen to average ten 1/2, ten 2/3, and ten 4/6 rolls then so be it. Average distribution. I assume a fair shake is as reasonable as even distribution of dice roll.

I want to key on this for a second.

First, this isn't a "fair shake" across the board. The goal isn't to A/B or A/C. It is to differentiate between 3 different cables. To that end, while randomizing which cable is being used at a particular time is completely acceptable, random dice rolls that determine the number of times a cable is used is not.
It should be 10/10/10. Each cable gets a "fair shake". But randomizing the order is fine.
As fantastic as the odds are, what happens if all 30 roles are for the same cable? Suddenly the advantage is blatantly skewed in my favor. Which I am OK with but gives you an "out" at the end. "You didn't detect any difference because it was all the same cable making the experiment invalid." Just seems like too many loopholes and escape clauses to me.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

if I succeed, are you willing to admit that you were mistaken?

I'll sit down with you and go through your discrimination process to learn.

I don't think the back and forth is petty. It's just agreement on an approach to testing this out. I will admit not being a fan of being accused of making the 30 roll of the dice suggestion and also the 10 per cable and then gloss it over when I responded with your post suggesting 3 cables and 30 roll of the dice. But it's all copacetic.

ZLTFUL

The 20 "runs" was originally your idea. I added a cable to the mix and upped it to 30. It really is 6 of one or half dozen of another. Semantics really as we were both on the same page...just different revisions of the same manual if you will.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I want to key on this for a second.

First, this isn't a "fair shake" across the board. The goal isn't to A/B or A/C. It is to differentiate between 3 different cables. To that end, while randomizing which cable is being used at a particular time is completely acceptable, random dice rolls that determine the number of times a cable is used is not.
It should be 10/10/10. Each cable gets a "fair shake". But randomizing the order is fine.
As fantastic as the odds are, what happens if all 30 roles are for the same cable? Suddenly the advantage is blatantly skewed in my favor. Which I am OK with but gives you an "out" at the end. "You didn't detect any difference because it was all the same cable making the experiment invalid." Just seems like too many loopholes and escape clauses to me.

30 rolls of the same # is perfectly valid. First off you won't know that it was 30 of the same. You'll indicate to roll the dice and the chips will fall where they may.

Whose to say that there are 30 rolls of the dice, they are all the same, and 5 times you name a difference where none existed?

I'll take my chances. Lets say your Belden or High End cable only roll 5 out of 30. You should be able to tell me when they come into play. You have to be correct 26 times.

I'll refer you back to my original post of #199 when you suggested A/B/C. I responded with the craps table analogy of a player stating they will roll a hard 10. That is you will state with each roll of the dice:

BJC CAT6
Belden CAT5e (is it e?)
Your high end CAT6

I asked specifically because if it was change / no change then basically your chance with each roll is 66% getting it right that there was a change. Make it four cables and just 'Tell if there's a difference' it's 75%. 10 cables nets you a 90% chance of saying "There was a change" and there indeed being one.

I just want this to be above board.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

The 20 "runs" was originally your idea. I added a cable to the mix and upped it to 30. It really is 6 of one or half dozen of another. Semantics really as we were both on the same page...just different revisions of the same manual if you will.

I offered 13/15. 13 right out of 15 tosses. Two cables: BJC CAT6 and your highend CAT6 at least that is where I started. I don't remember my saying 20 dice rolls but will look.

polrbehr

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Don't waste your time Tony...it's like arguing with a tree.

Unless you argue with a running chainsaw in your hands... but you should heed your own advice IMO.

Judging by the way this thread has "progressed", I have a feeling that this comparison will never happen (too many variables/intangibles/rules/criteria/take your pick), and it's probably for the best.

While I have enjoyed reading (some) of the posts here, and even throwing my .02 in every now and then, realistically this has nowhere left to go.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Your comment is actually the particularly uninformed one.

Most recording artists and recording engineers have no interest whatsoever in producing audiophile quality recordings or even above average quality recordings. This is one of the greatest frustrations of being an audiophile: you assemble a high resolution stereo system but so many of your favorite recordings are low resolution due to poor recording practices.

Before the digital era, the standard practice was to use tons of compression so that recordings would "sound good" on AM and FM radio. In the digital era, low resolution MP3s dominate the market. High resolution digital music files and SACD are niche markets. Most consumers don't care about sound quality, therefore most music producers, engineers, and recording artists don't care either.

Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), like any recording production tool, come in various levels of quality. You can even get versions that run on a smartphone. Computer audio generally has a poor reputation with audiophiles because of the generally low production values.

With regard to the headphone comment, you again appear to be misinformed because headphone sound is not stereo sound, it is binaural sound, and therefore unnatural because people don't listen to music under normal circumstances with one ear isolated from the other. As I said in my review of the Philips' Golden Ear Challenge, the tests were designed to be done with headphones, but some of the exercises were easier to hear when listening through my computer's stereo loudspeakers:



You continue to display a common trait among blind test for stereo proponents: a lack of basic knowledge of how stereo works. Indeed, some of the most published and most well known stereo blind test proponents, like Floyd Toole, Stanley Lips-h- i- t- z, and Arnold B. Krueger, don't even like stereo because they consider it inferior to monophonic sound. (Part of Stanley's last name was hyphenated because the forum censoring software thinks it is a "bad word" and will star it out.)



It us unfortunate that you picked this particular point to agree with HM.

Stereo sound is based on the same sound localization processes that humans use everyday, whether listening to music or trying to determine the location of an ambulance siren. The human listening mechanism is not designed to have the sound stage moved to the inside of our heads.

I agree that a good headphone setup can provide the same, or even a higher, level of subjective listening satisfaction as a good stereo rig, but when evaluated on strictly stereophonic performance parameters, the headphones will always come up lacking. That is because headphones are not a stereophonic sound medium. They are a binaural sound medium. That is why the vast majority of audiophiles prefer to listen with stereo loudspeakers rather than headphones.



One of my chief complaints about stereo blind tests is that they are usually setup in a manner unrepresentative of how the listener listens to stereo. It is as if the blind tester really has no confidence in their methods and always need to stack the deck in their favor.

If you two are not going to set up the test in a manner representative of how you actually listen, why do the test?

HM said one of the reasons he is hesitant to do tests at Polkfest is that he would not want to test people on systems they are unfamiliar with. However, for this test, it appears he is doing exactly that: testing someone on a system they are unfamiliar with.

I could not have said it any better or even as well you stated these facts Ray. Thank you sir.

Also, your last point you brought up regarding setup of the test, is what I was getting at in my last post. Thanks again.

If ZLTFUL agrees to a test that invloves a system (computer audio) that he normally doesn't use to listen to music. This is why this test is not a true scientific test. There are motives going on in the test that are favoring one outcome over another.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If you have a better, some how, unmotivated: motherboard, Intel NIC, 8GB Kingston RAM, PNY SSD, ASROCK Mainboard, AMD CPU, Radeon video card, Microsoft OS, JRiver Media Player way of doing this... Well I'm all ears.

Absolutely; don't use a computer system and headphones to listen to stereophonic music through Ethernet cables. Use a system that ZLTFUL ususlly listens to stereophonic audio through. Fairly simple.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Science is not motive driven? That's a new one.

You obviously either didn't undersand what I said, or you ignored it. Go back and re-read the last paragraph of my reply please.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you like bending items to appear as absolutes.

No, bending items to appear as absolutes is your method, as evident by this statement:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I don't even know what to say to artists and recording engineers that use DAWs'.

I am also not the one hanging on for dear life to the absolute fantasy that blind audio tests are perfect for every type of audio.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Are all of them gems, most certainly not. Are all of them dogs, most certainly not.

In that case, there was no need to reference not knowing what to say to artists and recording engineers that use DAWs. It's not like every DAWs produces a masterpiece of stereophonic art.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

What did I say exactly about headphones again? Can you find and quote me please?

Sure. This is from post #445. You were responding to ZLTFUL's comment about image weight and sound stage not being as clearly defined with headphones:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Your headphone comment strikes me as particularly uninformed.

There was nothing "uninformed" about ZTFUL's comment. There is no way that a pair of headphones can reproduce a three dimensional sound stage with its accompanying image weight the way that a pair of loudspeakers can. However, since you don't understand stereophonic performance, this concept escapes you.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Headphones are fine for critical evaluation. One of the benefits is they have lower distortion characteristics than most well designed speakers. I know headphones are binaural. That is why only biaural recordings work on headphones and not on speakers. They rely on the ears receiving direct input and uncoupled from each other.

If you understand why binaural recordings are not optimally reproduced on speakers, it is bizarre that you cannot (or will not) understand why stereo recordings will not be optimally reproduced on headphones.

It is just common sense that a binaural audio device is not going to be optimal for evaluating the spatial aspects of stereo sound. As far as lower distortion, you are actually just replacing one type of distortion with another when you play stereo music through headphones. Music that is mixed for stereophonic reproduction will exhibit various types of distortion when played back through binaural headphones. That is not to say that the result will not be pleasing, and even preferable, to some people's ears.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Headphones also take the room out of the equation.

OK. This is a question for ZTLFUL: Do you take the room out of the equation when you are listening to your stereo?

Again, if ZTLFUL is happy with the test setup, so am I.

If someone says they hear differences in cables under certain conditions, it does not seem scientifically valid, to me, to test that assertion under different conditions.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

We are measuring the ability to discern audible differences in cables. This could be done Stereo, Monophonic, Headphones.

Again, a basic principle in science is that a thing should be tested the way it is used. If ZTLFUL listens normally to stereo sound, a test with headphones or monophonic sound will have highly questionable application to stereo sound.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm not evaluating stereophonic performance.

I understand that. Most blind tests for stereo do not evaluate stereophonic performance. The part that is troublesome is that blind test proponents take their non-stereo test results and extrapolate them to stereo.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I've never heard a 2.0 stereo come close to the soundstage and environmental element placement that a well mastered binaural recording does.

Some people have a preference for binaural over stereo and some people have a preference for mono over stereo. Just because a stereo sound stage is more representative of "real life" that does not mean it will automatically be preferred by all.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Sure. This is from post #445. You were responding to ZLTFUL's comment about image weight and sound stage not being as clearly defined with headphones:



There was nothing "uninformed" about ZTFUL's comment. There is no way that a pair of headphones can reproduce a three dimensional sound stage with its accompanying image weight the way that a pair of loudspeakers can. However, since you don't understand stereophonic performance, this concept escapes you.

Ray, I wanted to point out that it was my post (not ZLTFUL's) that HM was responding to regarding image weight and soundstage through headphones for accuracy and clarity.