Author Topic: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)  (Read 8225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MrMobodies

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 382
  • Country: gb
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #150 on: December 16, 2018, 07:54:32 am »
Here's a joke:

I wonder what these audiophools are afraid of the most.

No longer having the reassurance from their "masters" about the "build" quality in the cables cables they purchased from them because they "built" a new one.

An oscilloscope hooked up to the cables to verify "things" that they claim to hear.

A hearing test to check whether they can hear properly.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mojo1961

Offline David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8350
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #151 on: December 17, 2018, 08:22:38 am »
I like the part where they used Coat Hangers and the "Audiophiles" could not tell the difference;
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Coat hangers made my system sound woolly.
 

Online GregDunn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • Country: us
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #152 on: December 17, 2018, 11:25:12 am »
I like the part where they used Coat Hangers and the "Audiophiles" could not tell the difference;
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Audiofools hate double-blind tests because it exposes their nonsense beliefs to scientific scrutiny.  I participate on a forum where DBT has been used quite a lot to compare lossy audio to lossless - another embarrassment to the so-called "golden ears".
 
The following users thanked this post: Mojo1961

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #153 on: December 17, 2018, 12:57:20 pm »
Audiofools hate double-blind tests because it exposes their nonsense beliefs to scientific scrutiny.  I participate on a forum where DBT has been used quite a lot to compare lossy audio to lossless - another embarrassment to the so-called "golden ears".

A computer magazine did such a test 18 years ago. The test setup: they used 17 different music pieces, and people had to listen to 1 minute CD quality first, then either 128 kbit/s MP3, 256 kbit/s or the same CD quality again, for 1 minute. So it was a A/B test. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into the details if it was a double-blind test, but I guess they knew what they were doing. The conclusion: nobody could hear a difference between CD quality and 256 kbit/s MP3, the 256 kbit/s MP3 was classified as CD quality as often as the CD quality test. But some people could hear a difference between 128 kbit/s MP3 and CD quality. But again, for some music, people thought the 128 kbit/s MP3 was better than the CD quality.

I think maybe an even better test setup than A/B is the ABX test, executed as double blind trials as well: "A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the first reference, and sample B, the second reference) followed by one unknown sample X that is randomly selected from either A or B. The subject is then required to identify X as either A or B.". The statistical results are less ambiguous than the concept with the arbitrary point system used by the computer magazine test. But I guess audiophools would argue that the relays used to switch the speaker cables influenced the sound, or other silly arguments. BTW, I think using mechanical relays could be a problem, because you could potentially hear different click sounds for different audio paths. Should be well shielded or very quiet relays.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 
The following users thanked this post: Mojo1961

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1719
  • Country: au
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #154 on: December 17, 2018, 04:35:54 pm »
Here's a joke:

I wonder what these audiophools are afraid of the most.

No longer having the reassurance from their "masters" about the "build" quality in the cables cables they purchased from them because they "built" a new one.

An oscilloscope hooked up to the cables to verify "things" that they claim to hear.

A hearing test to check whether they can hear properly.


I'd advise stubborn AFers to get the ear wax fudge flushed out first,
especially if the sound is no longer as airy as it was when they first used the $ $ $ $ $ $ speaker wire,
and some blab on how a wax clean improves the ears audio convection ( :bullshit:) to get their attention,
because the facts and A-B blindfold comparison mashup is obviously Verboten City   

Advice that will most likely go in one ear, and out the ? ? ? anyway...  :horse:



« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 04:41:57 pm by Electro Detective »
 

Online GregDunn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • Country: us
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #155 on: December 17, 2018, 04:57:00 pm »
Audiofools hate double-blind tests because it exposes their nonsense beliefs to scientific scrutiny.  I participate on a forum where DBT has been used quite a lot to compare lossy audio to lossless - another embarrassment to the so-called "golden ears".

A computer magazine did such a test 18 years ago. The test setup: they used 17 different music pieces, and people had to listen to 1 minute CD quality first, then either 128 kbit/s MP3, 256 kbit/s or the same CD quality again, for 1 minute. So it was a A/B test. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into the details if it was a double-blind test, but I guess they knew what they were doing. The conclusion: nobody could hear a difference between CD quality and 256 kbit/s MP3, the 256 kbit/s MP3 was classified as CD quality as often as the CD quality test. But some people could hear a difference between 128 kbit/s MP3 and CD quality. But again, for some music, people thought the 128 kbit/s MP3 was better than the CD quality.

I think maybe an even better test setup than A/B is the ABX test, executed as double blind trials as well: "A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the first reference, and sample B, the second reference) followed by one unknown sample X that is randomly selected from either A or B. The subject is then required to identify X as either A or B.". The statistical results are less ambiguous than the concept with the arbitrary point system used by the computer magazine test. But I guess audiophools would argue that the relays used to switch the speaker cables influenced the sound, or other silly arguments. BTW, I think using mechanical relays could be a problem, because you could potentially hear different click sounds for different audio paths. Should be well shielded or very quiet relays.

Yes, the ABX test is a superior scientific tool to perform DBT and that's what I use for audio codec evaluations.  In fact, a proper ABX test allows the user to select the material, the actual sample length and location, and run an unlimited number of selections before choosing each instance.  At least (I think) 16 instances per test should be conducted in order to exclude random choice to a <5% level.  Properly designed, it eliminates nearly all possible objections to the accuracy of the test.  Just FYI, I can barely tell 128K lossy from a lossless source on high quality material; the total test (I only managed 10 instances) lasted half an hour and was quite tiring because I had to strain to hear any difference at all.  It would have been entirely adequate for casual listening.  I'm pretty sure 192K or higher would be completely transparent for me, even with critical listening. 

There existed (and may still exist) an electromechanical test box for comparing amplifiers, cables, etc. which ensured that any audible/visual clues were obscured to the point that specific settings could not be determined independently.  I think it actually switched relays whether A, B, or X was selected, and ensured that the path was a constant length + same number of relay contacts just to eliminate another set of objections.  It was used by a group called the SMWTMS for numerous tests in which the fallacy of audible differences between cables, interconnects, and quality amplifiers was repeatedly challenged and defeated.
 
The following users thanked this post: mrz80

Offline mrz80

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: us
  • The carpet is plush!
    • The Scotsman's Site of Web
Oh good LORD ALMIGHTY but my head hurts after reading the ad copy (and ESPECIALLY after reading the TAS excerpt) at the head of this thread!  |O |O |O  I've been sitting on the edge of the audio world since I was a little kid, watching it all go down, and the capacity of the human animal to lie to himself and believe it just goes beyond all bounds in this environment.



I used to go round-and-round with a coworker who's a degreed electrical engineer and REALLY ought to KNOW better about the whole cables thing. Ah well, he doesn't have kids so it's not like he's squandering anyone's inheritance...  ::)

I am **SO** glad my granddad (one of the pioneers of this once respectable, now misbegotten environment) did not live to see the reasoned, conservative, well-engineered approach to high fidelity audio reproduction so marginalized by a group of people, companies, and magazines that make Amar Bose look like a pillar of moral rectitude and truth in advertising!  :palm:

[edit]  Oh, and for those who want to start a rational discussion about wire with someone who might NOT be too far gone to rescue from drinking the snake oil... http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:24:39 am by mrz80 »
Networks, Les Pauls, Telecasters, ham radio (WA4UF), bicycles, trains
 

Offline Deodand2014

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Country: au
Do it! Hopefully, they'll all stab their eardrums out with them and we won't have to worry about them anymore. >:D

I think one already went deaf.

I re-quote from Audiogoon:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/cannot-find-perfect-sound/post?postid=1643618

Quote

Cannot find perfect sound
Nutkenjit
09-21-2018 10:47pm

I've been listening to supposedly some of the finest speakers that currently exist. These include b&w 800 Series, revel high end, vivid audio, Psi audio and kef blades.
They must have excellent hearing and I wonder if they would submit themselves to hearing tests to confirm how good their hearing is to notice the difference.

Quote
Nutjim204
09-21-2018 10:55pm
I think one because they are probably a centimetre from your ear drum and two they are blasting may100 db as well and maybe they have damaged your eardrums so much that you now can't differentiate good from bad. Them earbuds'll do it every time.


Somewhere up the thread and their hearing is going to or on Dire Straits:

Quote
Nutpcc677
11-03-2018 1:48pm
Elizabeth,  I totally agree. I have noticed many recordings are crap. So I set up playlist of music that sounds the best to me. Dire straits,  Diana krall and quite a few others.

So it is the recordings that are crap and not your ears?

No idea, I recently picked up a pair of second hand LG LHS-W75TAF (6ohm, 200watt) speakers to pair with my audio unit (4-16ohm, 65watt), both seem to sound fine, though even my non-expert hearing makes me want to find out just what is inside the speakers, as I'm not sure if they are working correctly (When I pass below the mid plane of the speaker towers the sound is 'above' me.) I seriously doubt any audiophile would be able to tell much more than that.
 

Offline mrz80

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: us
  • The carpet is plush!
    • The Scotsman's Site of Web
Re: The discerning audiophile's choice of proper speaker wire. ($35,000 for 2.5m)
« Reply #158 on: February 09, 2019, 07:52:25 am »
Yes, the ABX test is a superior scientific tool to perform DBT and that's what I use for audio codec evaluations.  In fact, a proper ABX test allows the user to select the material, the actual sample length and location, and run an unlimited number of selections before choosing each instance.  At least (I think) 16 instances per test should be conducted in order to exclude random choice to a <5% level.  Properly designed, it eliminates nearly all possible objections to the accuracy of the test.  Just FYI, I can barely tell 128K lossy from a lossless source on high quality material; the total test (I only managed 10 instances) lasted half an hour and was quite tiring because I had to strain to hear any difference at all.  It would have been entirely adequate for casual listening.  I'm pretty sure 192K or higher would be completely transparent for me, even with critical listening.

That has been my experience as well. In a pristine audio environment maybe I *might* discern audible degradation in a 128k MP3 vs the source, but in the real world, noisy kitchen/living room at home, the zoo-like cubefarm at work, or God help us all the car, it's a non-issue. Compression artifacts are totally swamped by lousy car speakers and environmental noise.  ::)

There existed (and may still exist) an electromechanical test box for comparing amplifiers, cables, etc. which ensured that any audible/visual clues were obscured to the point that specific settings could not be determined independently.  I think it actually switched relays whether A, B, or X was selected, and ensured that the path was a constant length + same number of relay contacts just to eliminate another set of objections.  It was used by a group called the SMWTMS for numerous tests in which the fallacy of audible differences between cables, interconnects, and quality amplifiers was repeatedly challenged and defeated.

Ah, the South West Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society!  I remember seeing that name in old Audio Amateur magazines. Are they still a going concern? I sure hope so, if  just for the name!  :-+ :-+
Roger Russell describes a similar setup that Gordon Gow used to use during his lectures on the ins and outs of speaker cable.  http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#gordongow  :popcorn:
Networks, Les Pauls, Telecasters, ham radio (WA4UF), bicycles, trains
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf