Should You Use Cables as Tone Controls?

Replicant 7

Replicant 7

Audioholic Samurai
It's not about how fast the water boils, it's how well it boils.
WTF, you two talking about, what does,(lead and boiling water) have to with the synergy of all things. You twos should already know synergy is a group of people more than two. Lolo:).
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
WTF, you two talking about, what does,(lead and boiling water) have to with the synergy of all things. You twos should already know synergy is a group of people more than two. Lolo:).
I thought your definition of synergy was 'a small mob'. o_O
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Until you have actually tried a product you can "make up" whatever you want to believe.

Unless you’ve measured it you can also make up whatever you want
Also, time correcting speaker stands? Cmon…
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Unless you’ve measured it you can also make up whatever you want
Also, time correcting speaker stands? Cmon…
Tipping the speakers back is effectively the same as designing the cabinet with the front tilted, but I would hope that's done after determining how far back it needs to be.

A stand that claims to be useful for most speakers is very suspect IMO, unless they offer realistic/usable methods for determining the angle needed and managing expectations.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Tipping the speakers back is effectively the same as designing the cabinet with the front tilted, but I would hope that's done after determining how far back it needs to be.

A stand that claims to be useful for most speakers is very suspect IMO, unless they offer realistic/usable methods for determining the angle needed and managing expectations.
The whole thing is suspect to me considering the source! Seems like you’d have to have a very specific angle to be useful and that would be determined by the distance to the LP. Seems a little too arbitrary to be useful, and what about floor type, and sbir etc?
I’ll pass. Besides, my towers won’t fit…lol
 
J

jeffca

Junior Audioholic
Should You Use Cables as Tone Controls?

Really? How does that work without degrading your listening experience in an unexpected way?

There are two big reasons to buy cables other than the use of quality components that will take any abuse and still work:
  • The cable design rejects any stray EMI that will add noise or interference to the signal it's carrying
  • The cable design doesn't generate any stray EMI that can cause noise or interference in other cables
All you have to do to get these qualities is buy Mogami. Their cables are the studio standard. In a large studio they may have several dozen of these cables meandering through their equipment cabinets and recording stages. Why don't they buy esoteric cables that cost $500/meter? Because they offer no improvement in performance.

When you have Mogami cable with Neutrik connectors, that's as good as it gets. It's not cheap, but not ridiculously expensive either. Spending more money is tantamount to flushing it down the toilet.

Also, considering that the greatest linear bandwidth necessary for any analog audio cable to do it's job is 10Hz-30kHz, this is a tiny fraction of what a cable of any type can accommodate. Even cheap Zip cord can handle frequencies up to several megahertz with no significant transmission loss.

If you think you can hear differences in various audio cables, what you are really hearing is your preconception bias based on what you think the cable can do.

This is science, not BS.
 
witchdoctor

witchdoctor

Full Audioholic
Should You Use Cables as Tone Controls?

Really? How does that work without degrading your listening experience in an unexpected way?

There are two big reasons to buy cables other than the use of quality components that will take any abuse and still work:
  • The cable design rejects any stray EMI that will add noise or interference to the signal it's carrying
  • The cable design doesn't generate any stray EMI that can cause noise or interference in other cables
All you have to do to get these qualities is buy Mogami. Their cables are the studio standard. In a large studio they may have several dozen of these cables meandering through their equipment cabinets and recording stages. Why don't they buy esoteric cables that cost $500/meter? Because they offer no improvement in performance.

When you have Mogami cable with Neutrik connectors, that's as good as it gets. It's not cheap, but not ridiculously expensive either. Spending more money is tantamount to flushing it down the toilet.

Also, considering that the greatest linear bandwidth necessary for any analog audio cable to do it's job is 10Hz-30kHz, this is a tiny fraction of what a cable of any type can accommodate. Even cheap Zip cord can handle frequencies up to several megahertz with no significant transmission loss.

If you think you can hear differences in various audio cables, what you are really hearing is your preconception bias based on what you think the cable can do.

This is science, not BS.
jeffca, I use Mogami cables and there is one thing that is over the top about them besides performance. A lifetime guarantee, I walked into a guitar center randomly with a broken cable that I had for years and purchased who knows where. They took my cable, gave me a new one and that was that.

As for your claims about hearing, science, etc can you please post a link to a peer reviewed white paper that substantiates any of that?
 
witchdoctor

witchdoctor

Full Audioholic
Tipping the speakers back is effectively the same as designing the cabinet with the front tilted, but I would hope that's done after determining how far back it needs to be.

A stand that claims to be useful for most speakers is very suspect IMO, unless they offer realistic/usable methods for determining the angle needed and managing expectations.
FYI- Andrew Robinson-
Conclusion

It seems if you want quality speaker stands these days be prepared to
spend between $300 and $500 for a stand that will elevate your
bookshelf speakers anywhere between 18 and 24 inches off the ground.
Mapleshade and their Maple Bedrock speaker stands take a slightly
different approach, while costing roughly the same as the competition
;
the Bedrocks won't elevate your bookshelf speakers physically but by
not doing so they will elevate them sonically. Don't believe me; try
them yourself for they come with a 30-day money back guarantee. They
might just surprise you... they sure surprised me.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...

As for your claims about hearing, science, etc can you please post a link to a peer reviewed white paper that substantiates any of that?
Just as soon as you have such paper supporting audibility. ;)
 
witchdoctor

witchdoctor

Full Audioholic
Sure he's welcome to reach out to me to be a guest on our channel. Again, this topic is beaten with a dead horse and my priority is to focus on much more important topics that affect sound.
Gene, here is a link to Dr. Kunchurs home page, it looks like he has presented at over 100 conferences, his contact info is on the page:


This paper would be a good topic of discussion:

"The arena of highest fidelity in music reproduction, sometimes referred to as high-end audio, has many controversial claims and contentious issues. One such controversy is whether the cables and topology used to interlink components together make an audible difference. There seems to be a disparity between anecdotal experiences reported by audiophiles and published formal scientific research, as to what are the minimal changes in system configuration that can be audibly distinguished. With the motivation of bridging this divide—which may originate from differences in instrumentation and subject-listening conditions used by the two groups—this work utilized a high-performance audio system and an extended-duration listening protocol that more closely resembles audiophile auditioning conditions. With these measures, the present work was able to prove through direct psychoacoustic testing that two different analog-interconnect pathways can be audibly distinguished."
 
Last edited:
witchdoctor

witchdoctor

Full Audioholic
I'll bet you can set up the same test conditions in the Audioholics home theater room and replicate the results, THAT would be a good video :).
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
We seem to have been infiltrated by a couple of BS merchants of late, which is unfortunate.

I would like to clear up a couple of points.

First, under unusual circumstances speakers leads can act as antennas, and pickup close local powerful transmitter providing clear and unwanted audio from your speakers.

This happens via the negative feedback loop of power amps. Both tubes, and transistors/ICs can rectify these signals, just like an old crystal radio. This is then amplified via the subsequent stages.

I first encountered this when I had my first digs in an apartment In Dulwich, which was in clear sight of the BBC TV mast at Crystal Palace. I had unwanted TV audio coming out of my speakers!

The BBC were very helpful and an engineer contacted me and told me how to solve it. He told me the exact number of turns of copper wire to wrap round the correct length and diameter piece of ferrite rod, and place it in series with the positive amplifier speaker terminal right at the output, one for each channel.

He also told me how to do this if I encountered it again. Well it worked perfectly. I personally have not had this issue since. However we had a member a couple of years ago, or so, who had a local Spanish AM radio station coming out of all this speakers. So I asked him to give me the frequency of the station. I then calculated and built the appropriate RF blocking chokes for him. It solved his problem.



The next issue is about tilting speakers.

This issue arises because the acoustic axis is not necessarily perpendicular to the front panel. This comes about when you have a speakers above one another, but NOT MTM with odd order filters.

It comes about because odd order filters have tilt. If you build a two way, or three way, with odd order filters, and the tweeter is on top, there will be a downward tilt of 15 degrees. If the tweeter is first order, and the woofer second then the tilt will be about 7.5 degrees. So some designers have sloped the front panela like Thiel used to do, as he was a proponent of first order filters.

So, you can not just willynilly decide to tilt speakers. As so often it all depends on the design. However, if you believe in magic you can convince yourself of almost anything. Humankind transmuted to the age of reason 400 years ago, but a few got left behind and never caught up. We have a few of those stragglers hanging around here at present.
 
Last edited:
O

OHMisback

Audioholic
"We seem to have been infiltrated by a couple of BS merchants and late, which is unfortunate."

JUST maybe you can learn something if you pay attention, TLS guy. I would say a little enlightening is in order even for the VERY well informed. It seems you may be.
NOW lets stretch that GRAY muscle. Mine is 1/2 full at 67, I still got a was to go. No insults slung other that, ignorance is bliss, or the brain is all filled up, which is it?

From the standpoint of science, and objectivity, we can measure a particular item, like Signal to Noise, IMD, Decay Rates and Frequency Response at different times with different measurements. We can state some items measure differently. That is data collected! In and of it's self it proves you ran some test, ONLY.

Entering into a debate without some common ground is the only real issue in the cable world. The lack of understanding music vs sound is NOT scientific. It is a question. There are many proofs in the human body of pleasing or soothing sounds other than by measuring the sound with only instruments. So, ONLY using the persons ears and verbal response as the measure, it is a very wide response to describe the same sound everyone heard unless they are trained to respond the same way. EX; "RINGING", here are some examples. I'll play them on speakers and you will hear the 'RINGING" from a poor XO selection. Lower the crossover point on THAT driver and the ringing will subside. They were taught, they didn't learn on their own. Someone taught them. This is the sound, this is the fix, now LISTEN to the fix.

The Iris, dilation and constriction, along with BP. EEG, perspiration and respiration rates are recorded to get baseline readings on the HUMAN side of "this test".

THEN we introduce music, and see if the person is trained to listen. When asked questions they measure the response, during playback and the recollection of
the playback, THEN overlay the Ear/Brain memory tape and see if the two are the same. A well trained ear, will include the proper description and what they heard or didn't hear. NOT I couldn't measure it, so it's not there. I don't know how to measure ringing other than pushing a driver until it does, THEN look at the scope, and compare what you hear with what you SEE. YOUR Ears heard it, your brain learned it. OR it didn't. Change jobs if it's how you make your living. You might go broke.

Is there agreement and proof of each measurement’s value and the range of human sensitivity? (young, old, deaf)

What are the relative merits of each measurement in terms of a (broad) range of listeners as well as you , specifically? Give a account measurements that make a difference. Not all the same. Stands to reason if thing measure the same but sound different someone is full of $hit or they are NOT measuring the RIGHT thing.
That is the actual fact.

We CAN'T take measurements which take into account the ear/brain mechanism as well as self-training of the neural pathways. What's neutral?
Look it up. It's the part most measure-ologist, leave out. Our brains relation to the sound and IF THAT brain has been trained.

I am saying this with the most humble and in the kindest way I can think of. FOR NOW! Some people have been PICKED because of their training to hear artifacts within the structure of a playback system. THEN they are further trained by "the masters". I've met a few sonar people that were VERY well trained in the differences in sound.
Furthermore their ears weren't ruined by abuse (musicians) or old, or untrained and wore out, when they started their music journey.

They know what will be on the recording vs what was added or removed via mixing.

If you are stuck with measurements that were mostly developed 50 years ago, and some new ones added you aren’t scientific at all. You are doing quality assurance.

I agree that it is almost science from a layman's perspective but from a scientific view, not so much. :cool:

I'm absolutely convinced that measuring to prove something WRONG will do just that and measuring something to prove it's right will have the same flavored effect.
The issue has always been NO two ears are the same. Why should anyone else's ears be any different. The left and right outer EAR on the same person are
DIFFERENT. So is the left and right side of your brain's understanding and reacting to it.

Do the math, that's 7.9 BILLION pairs of ears that are different. 15.8 BILLION different ears to hear with.

We all hear the same way. We do? Yes, I took 6 whole test to make sure out of 15.8 billion slight variation in the human ear I covered all 100%. We should have a good test bed of information. OK, Knock me over with a feather. YOU have a mouse in your pocket, I don't agree with a darn thing you said other than you ran 6 test.

How does that sound to the scientist in the room? From a mechanics perspective, I'm going to listen a little more, NOT LESS and turn my head a few times and LEARN
to hear the difference, GUESS WHAT, I CAN at 67 years old. I can tell what I like from what I don't. Amazing. What's more amazing is I don't have to prove a thing to people that don't want to LEARN how to listen, screw them ALL. I don't have to play marbles with people that want to play football.

BTW I'm not a Gary Busey fan any more either, things do change.

To the Eeyore 3, who cares. Ignorance is bliss. You want to join, keep saying all cables sound the same and we need a blind test to prove it. I think first
WE need to learn how to listen and find out if we can tell the difference. A lot of younger trained people can, a lot of older people can't and because they can't
you can't either. HORSE PUCKY I know it's pure jealousy, a pure lack of education or the lack of being able to hear. The gear, comparison is laughable at best for testing.
"Pick the features you want on your AV. OK... 36 - 24 - 36 AND I want it to sound GOOD. The important part. I seldom hear it though. HOW DOES IT SOUND?
I have 10,000 features though. BUT it sounds like $hit. OH I didn't realize that. Can't get two speakers right but you're going to try 14 more to start with.

Me, the dog, the rabbit, and the goat's heads all tilted sideways. The rabbit know we only have two ears, what's with the other 14 speakers? He's really looking now
he know I'm talking about him. True rabbit ears for sure, great reception.

Jesus, I'm going to feed the damn chickens and spit over the fence.
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Gene, here is a link to Dr. Kunchurs home page, it looks like he has presented at over 100 conferences, his contact info is on the page:


This paper would be a good topic of discussion:

"The arena of highest fidelity in music reproduction, sometimes referred to as high-end audio, has many controversial claims and contentious issues. One such controversy is whether the cables and topology used to interlink components together make an audible difference. There seems to be a disparity between anecdotal experiences reported by audiophiles and published formal scientific research, as to what are the minimal changes in system configuration that can be audibly distinguished. With the motivation of bridging this divide—which may originate from differences in instrumentation and subject-listening conditions used by the two groups—this work utilized a high-performance audio system and an extended-duration listening protocol that more closely resembles audiophile auditioning conditions. With these measures, the present work was able to prove through direct psychoacoustic testing that two different analog-interconnect pathways can be audibly distinguished."
Interesting paper but flawed. 3 Trials in most cases? Really?
A presentation followed by B or B followed by A? Really? No A followed by A or B followed by B? Why not? It was given that there would be a change. WOW.
Listening sessions into the minutes? I guess the author didn't consult people in the filed who did extensive blind testing to develop perceptual coding like the likes of JJ Johnson at At&T, I believe.
And he dismisses the psychoacoustic research? Because proper testing produced null results?
How would those subject do when you ask them to do 20 trials? How good are their guessing?
It appears that 4 subjects guess correctly on all 3 trials. Out of 16 participants would this be reasonable?

Extraordinary capabilities of the ear. Really? Is that why perceptual coding works when one cannot differentiate CD from MP3 or similar at a high enough bit rate like 340K?

Wonder if there are any comments from AES members yet on this paper. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
witchdoctor

witchdoctor

Full Audioholic
Interesting paper but flawed. 3 Trials in most cases? Really?
A presentation followed by B or B followed by A? Really? No A followed by A or B followed by B? Why not? It was given that there would be a change. WOW.
Listening sessions into the minutes? I guess the author didn't consult people in the filed who did extensive blind testing to develop perceptual coding like the likes of JJ Johnson at At&T, I believe.
And he dismisses the psychoacoustic research? Because proper testing produced null results?
How would those subject do when you ask them to do 20 trials? How good are their guessing?
It appears that 4 subjects guess correctly on all 3 trials. Out of 16 participants would this be reasonable?

Extraordinary capabilities of the ear. Really? Is that why perceptual coding works when one cannot differentiate CD from MP3 or similar at a high enough bit rate like 340K?

Wonder if there are any comments from AES members yet on this paper. Time will tell.
You saw his website right? It has his e-mail, why not e-mail him and ask? Did you read the bibliography?
Look at the test conditions, very simple for them to be replicated, you don't need any special equipment just an HEA (you have one of those right? We all know Gene does)
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
You saw his website right? It has his e-mail, why not e-mail him and ask? Did you read the bibliography?
Look at the test conditions, very simple for them to be replicated, you don't need any special equipment just an HEA (you have one of those right? We all know Gene does)
What's an HEA? You're the one proposing something be explored, so set it up, why should Gene work at it just to satisfy your fetish? BS merchant indeed.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
You saw his website right? It has his e-mail, why not e-mail him and ask? Did you read the bibliography?
Look at the test conditions, very simple for them to be replicated, you don't need any special equipment just an HEA (you have one of those right? We all know Gene does)
Thanks for the suggestion. I read most of his paper you linked. What is there to replicate? Flaws?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
These clowns have now self identified and made my points more eloquently than I ever could!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top