Speaker Cable Faceoff 2: Introduction & Measurements

[Dan Banquer]

More Sheer Lunacy

"1) .5db isn't heard? Is it factual? It depends on the quality of the parts, equipment used. Attack and decay times are influenced by the components themselves, and revolve around the Bandwidth, DA, and DF of parts in the components used in the test as well as the cables tested. The quality of componenets make a huge difference in the outcome. One can easily hear a 0,1db change with good parts and design."

You need to define what a quality component is and be specific about it. Give factual data. Capacitors have properties in the audio band such as DA that effect audio response, but wire does not. You are confusing this issue, either deliberately, or out of ignorance.

"And even if sophisticated studies are done, and accuracy is "assumed" and "true", the conclusions would only be true for that test, under those conditions."

If you have alternative test data feel free to submit as an article. Your opinions are just that: opinons.


"Any practical subjective testing would have to be scrutinized to eliminate any variables and assumptions that would cause inaccurate results. (By the way, I would like to see any subjective study that, in its conclusion, calls its findings "FACT". If you can, good.)"

Pro Audio has been doing this type of testing for years. Because they are well trained in many respects the results are not all negatives which usually happens in consumer audio. Do they have opinions? Bet on it.

2)" Assuming that frequencies above 20khz aren't important. Changing the -1db FR response above 100khz can cause a dramatic sonic change when listening. How is this possible if the signal present doesn't go above 20khz? It changes the attack and decay times. Remember we are dealing with signal changes to -60db, -80db and more down in the audio band."

This is total BULL****. The first thing you need to understand is that microphones roll off very rapidy after 20 KHz. This subject came up when I was talking with one studio in particular who bluntly stated that they could find no useful musical information above 22 kHz.There are some very good "white papers" on the Lavry Engineering web site that concerns this. You would do well to read it. The statement you have made above clearly demonstrates you have not done much of any reading or research on the past 100 years of audio.
I realize that a major election is a few days away here in the U.S.A., so lets save the political spin for the media, and out of this forum. However; at the Audio Asylum you will be most welcomed, try there.

Dan Banquer
www.redesignsaudio.com

 

[Unregistered]

Some examples

You sir: "Flaws in the studies? Until someone poins them out with equally valid papers, why should I?"

So you cannot find the flaws yourself. Being so smart you certainly should be able to figure them out. Simply find the words "I assume" this to be true, "we think", "scientists think", "it is generally assumed", "our data suggests", "our data supports the claim" we used such and such equipment for our tests (not knowing if the components are of sufficient sonic quality to give accurate data since they don't give any info on why they selected the components), "we don't think this such and such will have bearing on the results" etc.

Very simple my friend.

anonymous

 

[Unregistered]

Erroneous points.

You sir: "You need to define what a quality component is and be specific about it. Give factual data. Capacitors have properties in the audio band such as DA that effect audio response, but wire does not. You are confusing this issue, either deliberately, or out of ignorance."

Actually it is author of the study who bears the proof that the component isn't altering the findings by being poor sonic quality (when testing speaker cables). After all, it is the author who is trying to prove to us his findings by presenting his paper/study, not us (that speaker wire doesn't affect the sonics). I am merely indicating the author has failed to prove this aspect of his study.

You sir: "If you have alternative test data feel free to submit as an article. Your opinions are just that: opinons."

Don't need to. The author is the one who presented the study/paper, did he not? It is his responsibility to prove his study is true, not us to refute it. You are not sounding very scientific.

You sir: "This is total BULL****. The first thing you need to understand is that microphones roll off very rapidy after 20 KHz. This subject came up when I was talking with one studio in particular who bluntly stated that they could find no useful musical information above 22 kHz.There are some very good "white papers" on the Lavry Engineering web site that concerns this. You would do well to read it. The statement you have made above clearly demonstrates you have not done much of any reading or research on the past 100 years of audio.
I realize that a major election is a few days away here in the U.S.A., so lets save the political spin for the media, and out of this forum. However; at the Audio Asylum you will be most welcomed, try there."

If you understood the FR of a component, you would have realized that an amps integrity at high frequencies requires the response to go well past 20khz. Otherwise, harmonic structures will be altered. Any amateur would understand this. So the microphone's response should also go well past 20khz, or alterations to the signal will be compromised. No wonder we don't get great recordings.

You sir: "I was talking with one studio in particular who bluntly stated that they could find no useful musical information above 22 kHz."

I hope you are talking about the microphone's ability to pickup information above 20khz, because nearly 40% of a cymbals harmonic energy content is above 20khz and didn't taper off even at 100khz, where the measurement stopped.

Anyway, if you must spin, at least know what you are talking about.

Good day.
Anonymous

 

[mtrycrafts]

You sir: "Flaws in the studies? Until someone poins them out with equally valid papers, why should I?"

So you cannot find the flaws yourself. Being so smart you certainly should be able to figure them out. Simply find the words "I assume" this to be true, "we think", "scientists think", "it is generally assumed", "our data suggests", "our data supports the claim" we used such and such equipment for our tests (not knowing if the components are of sufficient sonic quality to give accurate data since they don't give any info on why they selected the components), "we don't think this such and such will have bearing on the results" etc.

Very simple my friend.

anonymous

Then you should not have a problem with those journal articles, even you will understand them.

While you are ordering those, you should also get and save on shipping:


Gilbert A. Soulodre, Michael C. Lavoie, and Scott *. Norcross, "The Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Materia, AES Convention Paper, 5892, Oct 2003

Ashihara Kaoru and Kiryu Shogo, "Detection Threshold for tones above 22 kHz, AES Convention Paper 5401, May 2001.

Enjoy the reading. Maybe these are mythological too. Don't waste your time though, nothing there. Nothing proven, nothing absolute.

 

[mtrycrafts]

. No wonder we don't get great recordings.

Is that an opinion? Of course it is.

I hope you are talking about the microphone's ability to pickup information above 20khz, because nearly 40% of a cymbals harmonic energy content is above 20khz and didn't taper off even at 100khz, where the measurement stopped.

And? What good is it? Can you hear it? That is what you are insinuating. Prove it.

 

[Unregistered]

Learn something new?

. No wonder we don't get great recordings.

Is that an opinion? Of course it is.

I hope you are talking about the microphone's ability to pickup information above 20khz, because nearly 40% of a cymbals harmonic energy content is above 20khz and didn't taper off even at 100khz, where the measurement stopped.

And? What good is it? Can you hear it? That is what you are insinuating. Prove it.

LOL. Well, why don't you do some testing of your own instead of relying on someone else to do all the thinking for you? Maybe you could actually learn something new? Investigate, explore on your own for a change, it is fun Mt.

Good day.
Anonymous

 

[Unregistered]

After reading this Anon's replies, i vote for ignorance.
He/she offers nothing substantial but continually puts forth the "you prove it" argument.
He/she is trying to come up with a complicated, philosophical approach to definition of terms like 'fact' and clearly has no idea how the scientific community defines such concepts and has for hundreds of years.
It is more than obvious he/she really knows nothing about audio electronics limitations or engineering concepts, let alone the simple limitations of human physiology. He/she is not interested in reading journal articles and places them in the same regard as a Dr. Suess children's book.

The discussion with this person has become futile and anything but enlightening. Sorry MYTRY but i would have to suggest you let this person continue forward in their own podanting world. There are many that one comes across in life, even in the level of universities and colleges and for some reason, they come in droves in the audio world. Perhaps it is one last bastion for which the desparate can argue anything...kind of like religion.

I think Gene's comments have quick easily much covered any menial points this person has brought up. Time for a new conversation.

Cheers,

A real, accredited scientist

 

[Dan Banquer]

More Sheer Lunacy

I agree. This is a total waste of time. High end philosophy hasn't cut it for the past twenty years and it certainly doesn't contribute anything now.
d.b.

 

[Unregistered]

Really?

Well, that is what was taught. So obviously you are a liar.

Caught you in a lie have we?

Anonymous.

 

[Mudcat]

To the person who chooses to remain anonymous due to shear ignorance or willful stupidity,


You continue on a path that theories are not facts, and that facts can be misleading due to an original source that may not have been correct to begin with. This is a good point, but the only thing you have written that actually makes sense.

People have posted opposing views with proofs of the theories that you deny. Yet you continue to willfully deny any proofs.

I have a question for you.

Do you have money in your pocket? I'll assume so (uh-oh, I'm assuming something).

How do you know you have money?

Because 100 percent of the worlds population believe that green paper has a value equal to the number printed on both sides (or if you belong to and live with a primitive amazonian tribe, the stones in your pocket - no not those stones - you've already shown you have big ones).

So where are we. The scientific commumity expouses a theory on acoustics. The scientific community expouses a theory on electronics. The scientific community proves both theories based on using equipment that has known and verifiable limitations. Proven within limits - often times those limits are infinitesimally small and the scientific community assumes negligibility because of past history with other theories and their knowledge of the subject. Engineers design things based on those proven theories. Those things work as they are designed.

Now, not all theories can be proven, and some are proven to be false. Remember those two Utah scientists who claimed cold fusion. The theory of cold fusion was not proven to be false, the proof those scientists developed was proven to be false. That is the beauty of science, it corrects itself.

Now all those acoustic and cable theories that you deny. Since the mechanism to prove them false exists (science), don't you think that would have been accomplished by now. Especially since those theories are many decades old. It only took a month to prove the Utah scientists wrong.

This attached reminds me of you.

In short, shove it.

 

[Unregistered]

Really?

You sir: "You continue on a path that theories are not facts, and that facts can be misleading due to an original source that may not have been correct to begin with."

One cannot mix fact with fiction/assumptions/speculation and come out with fact as a conclusion. Assumptions can skew the results decidely, as shown below. Before calling someone stupid, maybe you should look at yourself?

A one simple observation, that the components were not proven to be adequate for the testing done shows a simple assumption that can skew the results towards No Sonic Difference (Let's assume facts were also presented elsewhere in the study). So if poor performing components were used, the result could/would be quite predictable, no sonic difference (even though facts were presented elsewhere in the study). So what did the testing prove? Nothing. The result is totally invalid.

Now let's say others authors use midfi components in their testing. How do they know their components will do the job? WE don't, just blind faith (see below for further explanation). So test after test results are invalid, yet the concensus becomes there is no sonic difference. And we haven't taken into account room acoustics, resonances and other assumptions that could skew the results towards "no sonic differences noted".

You sir: "People have posted opposing views with proofs of the theories that you deny. Yet you continue to willfully deny any proofs."

See above. By the way, take a look at the Wisdom section and capacitor testing. I had to roll on the floor laughing because of the inept attempt to test for sonic differences between electrolytic caps and "Sonic caps". There were more holes in the testing procedure than swiss cheese. Study it carefully and find all the problems in the testing procedure that could skew the results.

You sir: "Do you have money in your pocket? I'll assume so (uh-oh, I'm assuming something).
"How do you know you have money?
Because 100 percent of the worlds population believe that green paper has a value equal to the number printed on both sides (or if you belong to and live with a primitive amazonian tribe, the stones in your pocket - no not those stones - you've already shown you have big ones)."

Yes, but your example is a far cry from what the "scientific" community is attempting to prove. It is much more complex.

You sir: "So where are we. The scientific commumity expouses a theory on acoustics. The scientific community expouses a theory on electronics. The scientific community proves both theories based on using equipment that has known and verifiable limitations. Proven within limits - often times those limits are infinitesimally small and the scientific community assumes negligibility because of past history with other theories and their knowledge of the subject. Engineers design things based on those proven theories. Those things work as they are designed."

"assumes" negligibility/ speculation? So if they are wrong, well (see below). "then Engineers design things based on those proven theories". If they are proven, they are not theories in the first place!

You sir: "known and verifiable limitations. Proven within limits - often times those limits are infinitesimally small" (Proven, How?, by the same flawed tests?)
So if they use similarly flawed subjective tests on the component, using assumptions, speculations etc, and then use this component as a reference for the actual test, which also uses assumptions/speculations etc, where are we? A subjectively flawed test used as a "factual" reference for another, similarly flawed test? LOL. Very interesting reasoning.

And if numbers people rely only on instruments, well, they have to prove a perfect corrolation between the instruments/readings and the human ear. How, by subjective testing. So now we have another subjective test that is supposively to be "factual" as a reference for another "subjective" test, both with assumptions/speculations etc.

You sir: "Now all those acoustic and cable theories that you deny. Since the mechanism to prove them false exists (science), don't you think that would have been accomplished by now. Especially since those theories are many decades old.

So you again assume these tests "prove" the mechanism is false, that the methodology is correct. Study them again and look at the assumptions, speculations etc. There are too many variables that can skew the results towards the result of "no sonic" difference.

Secondly, decades old doesn't mean anything. If the reference, say a component, is of insufficient sonic quality to be used as a reference, then the theory could stand for decades without being proven, couldn't it.

Using the same old similarily flawed test to verify another similarly flawed test doesn't prove anything, except how shortsighted and limited some are.

Good day.
Anonymous

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Might I suggest we ignore Mr. or Ms. Anonymous until he/she sees fit to register and post under at least a handle? The person seems more intent on s***-stirring than constructive debate. Let's not encourage it.

 

[Audioholics]

I'm sure he was waiting on a response just like that, unfortunately.

"Mr. Anonymous" feel free to keep posting, but honestly, you're asking for us to do a bunch of stuff to satisfy your particular questions and we'll simply have to put it on our to-do list. We've already done far mosre than you will get anywhere else regarding this topic, but I suggest you summarize your particular issues in an email to come up with what you feel would be a productive solution. Assuming there is a potential resolution to your particular issues.

Carry on...

 

[Unregistered]

Simple

Very simple:

1) Start thinking instead of letting others think for you (general term).

1) Stop false labeling of tests as fact when they are anything but fact.

2) Stop being so closed minded and biased. No need to be defensive when one challenges you (general term). If one were truly open minded, one would look over the experiments line by line, meditate on procedures, and at least check into possible aproblems. Instead, blindly, science has all the answers attitude is actually pretty stupid.

I just hope the average citizen is bright enough to do their own thinking instead of blindly being led by someone else.

Gone for good, Hurray.

 

[Mudcat]

...science has all the answers attitude is actually pretty stupid.

True, although I do not think I worded it like that, and I do not think that others made that explicit implication. Although, we are banking on science finding the all of the answers, however long it may take. After all, it took science almost 90 years to prove some of Einsteins theories.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The discussion with this person has become futile and anything but enlightening. Sorry MYTRY but i would have to suggest you let this person continue forward in their own podanting world. There are many that one comes across in life, even in the level of universities and colleges and for some reason, they come in droves in the audio world. Perhaps it is one last bastion for which the desparate can argue anything...kind of like religion.

I think Gene's comments have quick easily much covered any menial points this person has brought up. Time for a new conversation.

Cheers,

A real, accredited scientist

Don't be sorry I have limits talking to walls too. I didn't use to but I have learned my time is better spent elsewhere

 

[Audioholics]

That last post was FAR more productive than the 10 pages of reading material provided earlier. I love it when people get to the point (otherwise I feel guilty cause there's often not enough time to read through everything they have to say 'the long way'.)

 

[tsteves]

hawke
"you're asking for us to do a bunch of stuff to satisfy your particular questions "

This I think is the strongest point made in what I've read.
No testing is perfect, but it's a lot of work. Pay anyone any amount to do it mr guest, and it sounds like you will have the same problems with their results.

 

[warnerwh]

At least one thing's for sure, it sure is hard to hear the difference between one set of cables and another, measurements be damned.

 

[mtrycrafts]

At least one thing's for sure, it sure is hard to hear the difference between one set of cables and another, measurements be damned.

That's because our hearing is not as good as the 'golden ears' want to think