Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"...

halo71 wrote: »

You didn't, read what I said again.

I did reread it, and edited my post about the same time you posted this. Sorry.

heiney9 wrote: »

How can you argue the lack of audibility when you've never tried to audibly hear the difference?

I'm at least willing to do it, and a proper scientific way at that.

That is the silliest thing I have ever read. To a person who has poor hearing they can look at the controlled measured frequency response of two speakers but will never be able to know if they can hear a difference. They measure to show a difference but until that person uses (in your world) a blind ABX test they won't know just by looking at a frequency plot.

There are also other measurements one can look at beyond a simply frequency plot.

Different people will hear things differently, that is very true. Even if an ABX proves someone else can hear a difference in power cords, that doesn't mean I will. However, the fact that there is at least some audible difference is still enough for me to consider trying them. But as of now, there is no scientific evidence proving any audible difference.

You make an assumption that because the frequency response is different for two sets of speakers anyone will hear the differences because the variation of frequency response MUST correlate to an audible difference for EVERYONE.

Nope. However, if even a single person can't prove audibility, why should I bother? If at least someone can hear it, that shows there is at least some (albeit minute) audible difference, and it's worth my time and money to delve into.

Again your bias is showing through because you won't apply the same assumption to the power cable.

Sure I will. However, there are no measurements showing difference in the final output due to different power cables. There are also no DBT/ABX's to support claims either. My speakers at least have one of those two.

heiney9 wrote: »

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation. By that statement you just admitted that there is a strong subjective aspect to this. So now what?

Nothing subjective about it. Either a person will hear a difference or not. We're not talking about describing how it is different, or which is preferred, as that actually would be subjective. Nope, we're simply talking about whether or not there is a difference. There are going to be things that no human can hear the difference in, which is the category that I claim power cables fall into. There will be things that some people will hear and others not. However, a study demonstrating that scenario still shows that there is some audible difference. It's not as complicated as you are making it out to be, and it is a purely objective study.

Your statement above is one huge contradiction. Unbelieveable, your logic is completely insane, I am in awe and speechless after reading the above quote. On one hand we all hear things differently, but you want a scientific method proving there is an audible difference for all...........I can't even begin to deternime where you get that sort of logic from. One of the sinle most illogical things I've ever read.

Nothing contradictory about it. However, it is clear that you will make every effort to twist my words around to make them into what you want them to be.

I'm out

Have fun! :cheesygrin:

So, keep on babbling. All you are accomplishing is to dig yourself deeper into the hole of absurdity and irrelevance, and are becoming an object to be mocked, ridiculed, and scorned.

Deeper and deeper he gets. He has passed beyond absurdity and irrelevance, and is quickly reaching the point of no return.

BeefJerky wrote: »

That's wonderful, but doesn't demonstrate any so-called difference between digital audio cables.

"Digital".... You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Not all "Digital" cables are the same. They are constructed differently and thus have different impedance regardless of what their use is for. Calling them "Digital" cables doesn't completely describe them.

My little anecdote is to show that the trace of a digital signal line and its resistance (I added resistance with a resistor but wires, cables, traces all have impedance) has a great effect on how it carries the signal. So the construction of a digital cable (all different by different manufacturers) will effect how well the signal is carried because the cable's impedance could vary greatly between manufacturers. Whether or not that has an effect in your system depends on the rest of your system. Again, the blanket statement that "it's digital, it shouldn't matter" is incorrect because there is no such thing as "digital".

I just want to clarify: even though my questions were directed to BJ, anyone should feel welcome to share their insights and knowledge.

Thanks.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In the FFT plots, the rms voltage level of the 60 Hz test tone is 70 volts. The average rms noise around 60 Hz was 0.11 volt with the stock power cord and 0.07 volt with the Statement SC power cord.

The questions now are:

1. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.11 volt audible?
2. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.07 volt audible?
3. In a 70 volt signal, is a 64% reduction in noise amplitude (0.11 volt to 0.07 volt) audible?

In the FFT plot of the speaker signal input, the noise is 0.11 volt or 0.16% of the total signal amplitude. Thirty-two years ago, a scholarly study showed that trained listeners using high quality media and equipment could detect noise as low as 0.003% of the total signal amplitude.

If it has been scientifically demonstrated that 0.003% noise is audible and the noise content in my study was 0.16% (over 53 times greater), is it reasonable to accept that my claim that an audible difference was realized when the power cords were switched?

Scientific theory and evidence relating to why the noise amplitudes in my noise study could not have been audible would be very helpful to my understanding.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If it has been scientifically demonstrated that 0.003% noise is audible and the noise content in my study was 0.16% (over 53 times greater), is it reasonable to accept that my claim that an audible difference was realized when the power cords were switched?

With the better power cord, the noise content was 0.1%, which was over 33 times greater than the audibility threshold in the Petri-Larmi study.

I thought blind testing didn't work for audio? I see you are willing to accept it when it has the results you want.

If the Petri-Larmi study is correct, then it should be easy to demonstrate the difference a power cord can make, in a blind study, since the difference is 33 to 53 times greater than the audibility threshold.

Yep...I just do what I do because, well, I can. Those who want to experiment, don't let "science" discourage you; especially since much of it is theory. If everything was so cut & dry, we'd all have the same system.

heiney9 wrote: »

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation. By that statement you just admitted that there is a strong subjective aspect to this. So now what?

Your statement above is one huge contradiction. Unbelieveable, your logic is completely insane, I am in awe and speechless after reading the above quote. On one hand we all hear things differently, but you want a scientific method proving there is an audible difference for all...........I can't even begin to deternime where you get that sort of logic from. One of the sinle most illogical things I've ever read.

I'm out

H9

......Hyperbole much?:eek:

heiney9 wrote: »

As much as you and the other guys in this thread. One good hyperbole deserves another...........don't you think. Let me guess you are on the naysayers side because while there is as much hyperbole coming from them.....you just decided to pick mine out. Love the selective posting that goes on.

H9

....says the kettle,to the black......btw,skippy.....when are you actually,totally,completely....OUT?....let us know:rolleyes:

Again the silence is deafening.

H9

Lol!!

madmax wrote: »

As I read through this thread I am considering a donation to the Institute for the Deaf Dumb and Blind.

Going to need a LOT of donations to take care of everyone.

H9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I thought blind testing didn't work for audio? I see you are willing to accept it when it has the results you want.

What I said was:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation of home stereophonic audio systems. It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective, non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

If the Petri-Larmi study is correct, then it should be easy to demonstrate the difference a power cord can make, in a blind study, since the difference is 33 to 53 times greater than the audibility threshold.

The ability to perceive an audible difference in any trial will depend on many factors such as listener ability and system resolution. I could hear a difference between the two power cords in my system. If I had listened to both cords in another system, I might not have been able to distinguish between them. In another system, the difference(s) may be many multiples of some prior established audibility threahold, but could still be masked by other factors, such as the distortion performance of the loudspeaker or the room acoustics.

One thing to consider is that the Petri-Larmi study was a study in simple SIGNAL DISCRIMINATION. They were comparing signals corrupted with various levels of noise. They were not evaluating audible differences in similar types of AUDIO EQUIPMENT. Therefore, since Petri-Larmi was testing the discrimination ability of subjects, a discrimination test like A/B was appropriate.

Also worth considering is the fact that, before the Petri-Larmi A/B tests were conducted, much ground work was done to establish control factors. Listener hearing capability, listener experience with stereo sound, listener seating position, the resolution quality of equipment and length of trials were all appropriate to stereophonic testing. The Petri-Larmi study didn't put a group of random people in a room and start swapping gear in a low resolution system.

One final thing to consider is that I, and other audiophiles, conduct many "accidental" blind tests throughout the year. These "blind tests" occur when we change something in our system and some disinterested party, (wife, girlfriend, random visitor) notices that "something sounds different".

Did you find my research, comments and calculations to be reasonable with regard to the audibility of measured differences in noise content between two power cables?