A big one on cables... go wild but back up what you say.

[Brokenflame]

My personal view is that interconnects are usually:

1. To short (less than 1.5m)

2. To smaller gauge (16 gauge, or smaller)

To have a massive impact on sound quality, so I try to find interconnect that have been properly terminated, and shielded. I also avoid buying interconnects over one meter in length. I don’t really mind if the interconnect is made from OFC, OCC, or Silver be it multistrand or solid. Nor do I mind the use of a Teflon or PE dielectric.

Obviously this is a trade off with price, cause we would all like 14 gauge solid sterling silver interconnects wrapped in the vacuum of space.

I like to think I have bought quality interconnect, but the truth is they are middle of the road or even low end of the market interconnects. And my reason for doing so, is simply that high-end cable manufactures do not publish the specification of their cables. Atlas, Wireworld and QED, publish more than most, but even then I don’t think it is enough.

So at this point you’re probably saying one of two things:

- Cables don’t make a difference.

- You need to listen to each cable for yourself.

If you are in the first camp, stay with us it might help you formulate more compelling arguments in future.

If you are in the second camp, your input is now required and here’s why:

For most of us, it is difficult to get our hands on lot of high-end cables. For instance, my Hi-Fi dealers do not stock interconnects costing more than £150. So I would have to purchase them online or order it though them, again making a purchase before I had heard it. Also we don’t have the time to goto different Hi-Fi shops around the country just to listen to a cable.

So we are forced to buy what we think is the best value for money, and will give us the best from our systems. Bearing in mind it may be a waste of money and not improve our system at all. Which means, we can only spend what we can afford to loose, as it is a gamble.

I myself have three RCA interconnects costing £30 (CA), £50 (Atlas), £110 (QED). The Atlas seems to carry more reverberations off the top hat than the other two, but on my system that’s all I noticed.

Now with speaker cable, I find observing differences should much easier between gauges. I can also appreciate things like:

i. Skin effect on gauge 14 and bigger

ii. Resistance due to runs over 2 meters

iii. Impedance (although for most cable it is very high in the audio range).

iv. Termination types (bare, soldered, cold weld).

So when I look at speaker cables I can be fairly objctive (within my budget), but there is so much more to cables, such as capacity and dielectic charge. Tieing up which characteristc effect which part of the sound is beyond me but I can appricate that on mid-rage and better system the difference can be heard.

So here come the questions:

1. What technical specifications do you look for in a cable? Where possible please explain how this impacts the sound quality and signal.

2. How you go about sampling (listen testing) cables? Borrow from friend etc.

3. What is your preferred speaker and interconnect cable?

4. What is your budget for cables?

5. How long is your interconnects/speaker cables?

 

[muljao]

People say cables make no difference, I removed mine from my system and I couldnt hear anything. My friend put them back on and I could, I did this as a blind test. So there.....

 

[Frank Harvey]

Being in the trade, I have heard various cables on different systems, and some on the same systems. Most of the time you get used to particular systems with a certain cable, and at some point you need that cable for a demo or someone wants to borrow it, so you put in a different cable. Doing various bits around the premises, that system will usually be playing in the background, so you get a general feel for the system and the cables being used. I always remember a system comprising of KEF Blades and Classé Delta pre/power, and having Chord Epic on the system. As above, it was swapped out for Odyssey for a week or so while on loan. Over the course of that week, I got the impression it just didn't sound quite right. The Epic came back, swapped it out, and it just sounded "right" again.

Some will say that's placebo, but I know what I heard. This wasn't selling to a customer, it wasn't even selling to myself, it was just a system on demo in the store. A cable change. I could quite easily have not even noticed.

To answer one or two of your questions, I do as above - leave a cable in a system for a while, then swap over and give that one some time. Maybe swap back if needed. I give cables time rather than trying to do quick A/B comparisons.

I personally seem to like solid core cables. Not in all systems (not with Naim, for example), but usually solid core. That doesn't leave me a particularly wide choice, but I do generally like what some of the AudioQuest cables do.

 

[abacus]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[andyjm]

So here come the questions:

1. What technical specifications do you look for in a cable? Where possible please explain how this impacts the sound quality and signal.

Broken,

A speaker cable is part of a very basic LCR circuit that includes the output impedance of the amp, and the input impedance of the speaker. It can be modelled using entry level engineering maths.

A bit of time doing this will show that really the only thing that matters for shortish cables of reasonable construction at baseband audio frequencies (say less than 5M and a typical shotgun side by side cable) is resistance, and therefore thickness.

Keep the cables as short and as thick as is practical and you have done the best you can.

No amount of money spent by the marketing department of a cable manufacturer will be able to improve upon this.

 

[Gazzip]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

 

[Frank Harvey]

So if our ears are that poor at perception, then why bother measuring anything scientifically, as we aren't going to appreciate the results! *biggrin*

 

[seemorebtts]

You don't need any backup information.use your ears.you can try lots of cables and get your money back at most good retailers.this is about you and what you want from your hifi so go mad and try as many cables as you can and then give us your feedback

 

[Brokenflame]

Andyjm, in your case when you look for cables would I be right in saying that you look for the cheapest 10 gague you can find for speaker wire then, and simply the cheapest interconnects then?

 

[chebby]

Andyjm, in your case when you look for cables would I be right in saying that you look for the cheapest 10 gague you can find for speaker wire then, and simply the cheapest interconnects then?

No. In his last post ...

Keep the cables as short and as thick as is practical and you have done the best you can.

 

[Gazzip]

You don't need any backup information.use your ears.you can try lots of cables and get your money back at most good retailers.this is about you and what you want from your hifi so go mad and try as many cables as you can and then give us your feedback

You do need to back it up if the title of the thread says you do.

 

[abacus]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

 

[ellisdj]

How would a machine measure an emotional connection to listening to a piece of music?

 

[Blacksabbath25]

And do not forget as you get older your hearing is not so good as it was when you was younger .

so maybe when people hear slightly smaller differences in music because of a cable there hearing might be slightly better then the next persons...... just an idea *smile*

 

[Gazzip]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

 

[seemorebtts]

I'm finding my hearing is getting more sensitive as I get older.i read about losing you're hearing and in some cases you hearing can get better.there was a tribe of people living in a forest (so not much noise)and by the time they were 30 40 they were nearly Def.and someone who had been exposed to loud but not excessive noise can have better hearing at 60.i think it's like an ear exercise

 

[abacus]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

 

[Gazzip]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

 

[Native_bon]

 

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

 

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

Brilliant. As much as we can measure aspects of sound, other aspects yet to be perfected.

 

[Oldphrt]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

That has has nothing at all to do with the measurement of sound or sound quality, it's about how good voice recognition software is, but nice try. :O)

 

[Gazzip]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

That has has nothing at all to do with the measurement of sound or sound quality, it's about how good voice recognition software is, but nice try. :O)

How do you think voice recognition software/hardware works? A computer digitizes analogue sound waves in to an electronically measurable format and compares it to previously measured, known speech phonemes. To give the scale of the machine's failure some context there are only approximately 40 phonemes in the English language which make up all of our words, against which the software/hardware combo needs to make that measurement comparison.

I am unsure as to why you think the failiure of a machine to match the ability of the human ear and brain in carrying out such comparitive measurements is not relevant. If a machine cannot accurately measure and match what it is "hearing" against a benchmark library of only 40 different waveforms, and you as a human can, then why would you trust that machine's judgement over your own ears when it comes to the task of measuring far more complex audio signals? It would be scientific heresy to do so.

 

[shadders]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

That has has nothing at all to do with the measurement of sound or sound quality, it's about how good voice recognition software is, but nice try. :O)

How do you think voice recognition software/hardware works? A computer digitizes analogue sound waves in to an electronically measurable format and compares it to previously measured, known speech phonemes. To give the scale of the machine's failure some context there are only approximately 40 phonemes in the English language which make up all of our words, against which the software/hardware combo needs to make that measurement comparison.

I am unsure as to why you think the failiure of a machine to match the ability of the human ear and brain in carrying out such comparitive measurements is not relevant. If a machine cannot accurately measure and match what it is "hearing" against a benchmark library of only 40 different waveforms, and you as a human can, then why would you trust that machine's judgement over your own ears when it comes to the task of measuring far more complex audio signals? It would be scientific heresy to do so.

Hi,

The article is not very clear. If you go to the universtry story, there is more information, but it is insufficient to determine the extent of the human brain superiority in recognising someones voice. The study was on recognising a human voice, which is a cognitive function, not a measuring capability.

1. The study indicates that 4 syllables are required for a human for 99% accuracy.

2. The 99% accuracy is only possible if the test subject is VERY familiar with the persons voice, such as a very close friend or family. NOT applicable to all people whose voice was required to be recognised.

3. The article states 92% accuracy for a machine. Is this with 2 syllables (mentioned in the article) or 4 syllables as per the humans with close friends or family ?. Is this with all peoples voices and not just the very close friends or family ?. As such, with every one who was required to be recognised, did the machine exceed human capability ???

4. The machines are only as good as the algorithmic design or programmer. There may be better algorithms not yet tested.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Gazzip]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

That has has nothing at all to do with the measurement of sound or sound quality, it's about how good voice recognition software is, but nice try. :O)

How do you think voice recognition software/hardware works? A computer digitizes analogue sound waves in to an electronically measurable format and compares it to previously measured, known speech phonemes. To give the scale of the machine's failure some context there are only approximately 40 phonemes in the English language which make up all of our words, against which the software/hardware combo needs to make that measurement comparison.

I am unsure as to why you think the failiure of a machine to match the ability of the human ear and brain in carrying out such comparitive measurements is not relevant. If a machine cannot accurately measure and match what it is "hearing" against a benchmark library of only 40 different waveforms, and you as a human can, then why would you trust that machine's judgement over your own ears when it comes to the task of measuring far more complex audio signals? It would be scientific heresy to do so.

Hi,

The article is not very clear. If you go to the universtry story, there is more information, but it is insufficient to determine the extent of the human brain superiority in recognising someones voice. The study was on recognising a human voice, which is a cognitive function, not a measuring capability.

1. The study indicates that 4 syllables are required for a human for 99% accuracy.

2. The 99% accuracy is only possible if the test subject is VERY familiar with the persons voice, such as a very close friend or family. NOT applicable to all people whose voice was required to be recognised.

3. The article states 92% accuracy for a machine. Is this with 2 syllables (mentioned in the article) or 4 syllables as per the humans with close friends or family ?. Is this with all peoples voices and not just the very close friends or family ?. As such, with every one who was required to be recognised, did the machine exceed human capability ???

4. The machines are only as good as the algorithmic design or programmer. There may be better algorithms not yet tested.

Regards,

Shadders.

Your reference to familiarity is not relevant. Familiarity was required to generate a result. How else would a voice recognition experiment work without recognition of the voice being the goal?

The machine/software could not measure the sounds with sufficient accuracy to cross reference them to a relatively small database and recognise them as often as the humans subjects could. Please expand on how the human did not beat the machine here.

Cognitive function is a persons reasoning, memory, attention and language recognition which leads to a knowledgeable response. These are all skills that a computer has and which a well designed algorithm can connect in to a form mimicing cognitive function. You may well be right that the algorithm is not fully developed and the machine may one day beat us at recognising sounds, but at this time it cannot. Simple as that really.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, but digging your heels in on a point like this makes you appear to be a anti-humanist technophile with an axe to grind.

 

[Oldphrt]

That’s easy to answer, get your old-school science books out and re-read them, there you will find that most of the effects mentioned by manufactures are irrelevant to an audio system, so can be ignored. (The skin effect is one, which has no bearing on the frequency range used for audio systems)

Most speaker manufactures recommend that the connecting cables have no more than 0.1 ohms of resistance from amp to speaker, therefore providing the cable meets this requirement, you will be sound. (The only thing that can alter frequency, is capacitance and/or inductance (As in a crossover) which should below any level that can affect performance in any decent cable (If not then the cable is sub-standard and should not be used)

It is also interesting to note, that in all testing all verifiable cable tests have proved that providing they meet a minimum specification (IE: too thin or substandard materials) then there is no difference, however ask anybody that says there is a difference to provide verifiable evidence, they can’t, (Not even the manufactures of these exotic cables can) because it does not exist.

The human senses are one of the poorest form of measurement in the world today, as they vary with temperature, how you feel, what mood you are in etc. hence the reason when testing that all possible outside influences must be removed for valid human testing. (Hence the double-blind test for sound)

No myths, no magic, no fairy dust, just basic common sense and a basic understanding of how cables works. (Hence the reason I said at the beginning to get your old-school science books out)

Hope this helps

Bill

You gonna back that bit up Bill? I am pretty sure that human perception is not even close to being replicated by a machine. We are simply streets ahead.

Name me one human that can measure anything as accurately as a machine, also name one human that does not vary the results depending on how they feel, or where they are, plus, if you put 5 machines in one place, you will get the same result from them all, however if you put 5 humans in the same place, then they will all produce different results. However, if you can provide verifiable evidence that the above is incorrect, (Subjective or personal opinion is not verifiable) then I am happy to be proved wrong.

Bill

Couldn't be more on topic if I tried...

https://qz.com/522186/heres-something-machines-dont-do-better-than-us-listening/

What has that link got to do with measurement, (Which both of my posts have been about) the link just relates to recognition of sounds, which is completely different to measurement. (You really should get your old-school science books out, as currently you are getting everything mixed up)

Bill

It is a link to an article which quotes a scientific study that proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound, Bill. I think that has a great deal to do with your "the measure rules" philosophy, and perhaps where it is flawed given that this hobby is mostly about what we hear. That is just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

You asked me to scientifically identify where a human was better at measuring than a machine so I did.

That has has nothing at all to do with the measurement of sound or sound quality, it's about how good voice recognition software is, but nice try. :O)

How do you think voice recognition software/hardware works? A computer digitizes analogue sound waves in to an electronically measurable format and compares it to previously measured, known speech phonemes. To give the scale of the machine's failure some context there are only approximately 40 phonemes in the English language which make up all of our words, against which the software/hardware combo needs to make that measurement comparison.

I am unsure as to why you think the failiure of a machine to match the ability of the human ear and brain in carrying out such comparitive measurements is not relevant. If a machine cannot accurately measure and match what it is "hearing" against a benchmark library of only 40 different waveforms, and you as a human can, then why would you trust that machine's judgement over your own ears when it comes to the task of measuring far more complex audio signals? It would be scientific heresy to do so.

Hi,

The article is not very clear. If you go to the universtry story, there is more information, but it is insufficient to determine the extent of the human brain superiority in recognising someones voice. The study was on recognising a human voice, which is a cognitive function, not a measuring capability.

1. The study indicates that 4 syllables are required for a human for 99% accuracy.

2. The 99% accuracy is only possible if the test subject is VERY familiar with the persons voice, such as a very close friend or family. NOT applicable to all people whose voice was required to be recognised.

3. The article states 92% accuracy for a machine. Is this with 2 syllables (mentioned in the article) or 4 syllables as per the humans with close friends or family ?. Is this with all peoples voices and not just the very close friends or family ?. As such, with every one who was required to be recognised, did the machine exceed human capability ???

4. The machines are only as good as the algorithmic design or programmer. There may be better algorithms not yet tested.

Regards,

Shadders.

Your reference to familiarity is not relevant. Familiarity was required to generate a result. How else would a voice recognition experiment work without recognition of the voice being the goal?

The machine/software could not measure the sounds with sufficient accuracy to cross reference them to a relatively small database and recognise them as often as the humans subjects could. Please expand on how the human did not beat the machine here.

Cognitive function is a persons reasoning, memory, attention and language recognition which leads to a knowledgeable response. These are all skills that a computer has and which a well designed algorithm can connect in to a form mimicing cognitive function. You may well be right that the algorithm is not fully developed and the machine may one day beat us at recognising sounds, but at this time it cannot. Simple as that really.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, but digging your heels in on a point like this makes you appear to be a anti-humanist technophile with an axe to grind.

Anti-humanist, LOL. The fact is audiophools hear differences that can't possibly exist, like power cords. If you want a true picture of what is really happening you measure it. A technical test that measures the power capability, distortion and frequency roll off of a subwoofer tells you whether you really have a good one. A test where a panel tells you how fast (LOL, what does that even mean????)) and deep a subwoofer goes while playing crap music tells you nothing worth knowing. It's measurements that tell you the PV1 is mediocre and the BK Monolith blows it away at half the price. Admittedly it is a little large, but even the cheapest BK beats a PV1.

 

[andyjm]

I'm finding my hearing is getting more sensitive as I get older.

Well, if it is, you are a medical phenomenon.

Age related stiffening of the cochlea and decay of the cochlea hairs and related neurons makes age related hearing deterioration inevitable.