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

[shadders]

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?

From the actual article :

"“The auditory capacities of humans are exceptional in terms of identifying familiar voices."

and

"Plante-Hébert found that the participants were unable to identify short utterances regardless of their familiarity with the person speaking. However, with utterances of four or more syllables, such as “merci beaucoup,” the success rate was nearly total for very familiar voices. "

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.

The accuracy of the machine is not stated for the number of syllables spoken. For 2 syllables, humans did not obtain 99%. We do not know what the machine accuracy was for 2 syllables. That is the problem - we only know, for familiar voices, where they spoke 4 syllables, that humans obtained 99% and machines 92%.

So this requires the questions :

1. What accuracy did humans obtain for non-familiar voices ?

2. What accuracy did the machine obtain for non-familair voices ? (familiar here is in regards to human familiarity)

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.

All we know is that for very familiar voices with 4 syllables spoken, humans achieved 99% and machine achieved 92%. That is it - this does NOT mean humans beat machines in EVERY respect with regards to voice recognition.

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.

My point is that you have not read the actual research summary, arrived at the wrong conclusion, and misapplied the study results on voice recognition to mean that humans can tell the difference between cables.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[andyjm]

There seems to be confusion on this thread between the measurement capability of scientific instruments, and the pattern recognition capability of the ear / brain combination.

Human senses were left behind in the measurement stakes ages ago. There is no competition whatsoever in the precision and repeatability of scientific measurements vs. human senses which are many orders of magnitude less precise.

The ear / brain combination (or eye / brain combination) is however still ahead of the equivalent microphone / computer (or camera / computer) combination when it comes to identifying patterns. Speech recognition, optical object location are still performed better by humans.

 

[Gazzip]

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?

From the actual article :

"“The auditory capacities of humans are exceptional in terms of identifying familiar voices."

and

"Plante-Hébert found that the participants were unable to identify short utterances regardless of their familiarity with the person speaking. However, with utterances of four or more syllables, such as “merci beaucoup,” the success rate was nearly total for very familiar voices. "

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.

The accuracy of the machine is not stated for the number of syllables spoken. For 2 syllables, humans did not obtain 99%. We do not know what the machine accuracy was for 2 syllables. That is the problem - we only know, for familiar voices, where they spoke 4 syllables, that humans obtained 99% and machines 92%.

So this requires the questions :

1. What accuracy did humans obtain for non-familiar voices ?

2. What accuracy did the machine obtain for non-familair voices ? (familiar here is in regards to human familiarity)

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.

All we know is that for very familiar voices with 4 syllables spoken, humans achieved 99% and machine achieved 92%. That is it - this does NOT mean humans beat machines in EVERY respect with regards to voice recognition.

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.

My point is that you have not read the actual research summary, arrived at the wrong conclusion, and misapplied the study results on voice recognition to mean that humans can tell the difference between cables.

Regards,

Shadders.

What are you wittering on about? I have read the research summary and I have drawn the same conclusion as the professor who carried it out. I have also not mentioned cables or drawn a comparison between this research and peoples perceived ability to tell their sound apart? Where did I say that exactly?

This all started in response to Bill's challenge:

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.

 

[andyjm]

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?

A cable has to be fit for purpose. There are good reasons why cat5e has twisted pairs with differing twists, satellite cable has a foil layer and arc welding cable is half an inch thick. Try using a low level interconnect lead on your kettle, or come to that, a kettle lead as a low level interconnect.

You need to establish what matters, and specify accordingly. With speaker cable, a domestic amp/speaker system is such that cable resistance dwarfs all other effects. You can mess around with all sorts of bits of wire, but in the end, it is the resistance of the cable that will make an audible difference.

In the case of an interconnect, resistance is of much less importance. Quality of shielding becomes a higher priority, and depending on the design of cable, inter-conductor capacitance.

Price is generally a poor indicator of quality in the domestic HiFi arena and has much to do with the marketing budget of the supplier and the volume of product sold as to the quality of the product itself.

 

[bubobubo]

i hope you dont buy transparent Gen 5 Opus rca $13,000/pair *beee*

 

[shadders]

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?

From the actual article :

"“The auditory capacities of humans are exceptional in terms of identifying familiar voices."

and

"Plante-Hébert found that the participants were unable to identify short utterances regardless of their familiarity with the person speaking. However, with utterances of four or more syllables, such as “merci beaucoup,” the success rate was nearly total for very familiar voices. "

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.

The accuracy of the machine is not stated for the number of syllables spoken. For 2 syllables, humans did not obtain 99%. We do not know what the machine accuracy was for 2 syllables. That is the problem - we only know, for familiar voices, where they spoke 4 syllables, that humans obtained 99% and machines 92%.

So this requires the questions :

1. What accuracy did humans obtain for non-familiar voices ?

2. What accuracy did the machine obtain for non-familair voices ? (familiar here is in regards to human familiarity)

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.

All we know is that for very familiar voices with 4 syllables spoken, humans achieved 99% and machine achieved 92%. That is it - this does NOT mean humans beat machines in EVERY respect with regards to voice recognition.

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.

My point is that you have not read the actual research summary, arrived at the wrong conclusion, and misapplied the study results on voice recognition to mean that humans can tell the difference between cables.

Regards,

Shadders.

What are you wittering on about? I have read the research summary and I have drawn the same conclusion as the professor who carried it out. I have also not mentioned cables or drawn a comparison between this research and peoples perceived ability to tell their sound apart? Where did I say that exactly?

This all started in response to Bill's challenge:

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.

Hi,

You have stated

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.

You have stated "proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring[/u] sound". You have used this research to state humans hear better than machines and machines are not very good at measuring sound.

The study is recognition of sound and NOT measurement of sound.

Agreed - you did not state explicitly that humans can therefore tell the difference between cables, yet this is a thread on cable sound, and others have raised the issue that machines/science can measure a cable vastly superior to humans. You are implying that the research you introduced, can by proxy, discount science measurement of cables, and humans can therefore hear the difference.

You have explicitly stated that machines are not very good at measuring sound, and this is not correct.

Regards,

Shadders/.

 

[Gazzip]

You have stated "proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring[/u] sound". You have used this research to state humans hear better than machines and machines are not very good at measuring sound.

The study is recognition of sound and NOT measurement of sound.

Agreed - you did not state explicitly that humans can therefore tell the difference between cables, yet this is a thread on cable sound, and others have raised the issue that machines/science can measure a cable vastly superior to humans. You are implying that the research you introduced, can by proxy, discount science measurement of cables, and humans can therefore hear the difference.

You have explicitly stated that machines are not very good at measuring sound, and this is not correct.

Regards,

Shadders/.

The machine measured a sound which was played to it, and subsequently could not identify that measure against its database of previously measured sounds as often as humans who took the same test could identify those sounds.

Your lack of reasoning leaves me thinking that I am actually discussing this with an algorithm. What is it you are finding so difficult to understand about this?

 

[shadders]

You have stated "proves machines cannot hear as well as we can. They are not very good at measuring sound". You have used this research to state humans hear better than machines and machines are not very good at measuring sound.

The study is recognition of sound and NOT measurement of sound.

Agreed - you did not state explicitly that humans can therefore tell the difference between cables, yet this is a thread on cable sound, and others have raised the issue that machines/science can measure a cable vastly superior to humans. You are implying that the research you introduced, can by proxy, discount science measurement of cables, and humans can therefore hear the difference.

You have explicitly stated that machines are not very good at measuring sound, and this is not correct.

Regards,

Shadders/.

The machine measured a sound which was played to it, and subsequently could not identify that measure against its database of previously measured sounds as often as humans who took the same test could identify those sounds.

Your lack of reasoning leaves me thinking that I am actually discussing this with an algorithm. What is it you are finding so difficult to understand about this?

Hi,

Measurement is defined as the measuring of something, such as length, weight, frequency, amplitude etc. Machines are vastly superior in this regard.

The study was on recognition of sounds, such as that is person A, or B, or could be a violin, or viola. This involves processing of information, NOT measuring.

The report presents a very narrow result where humans are better at cognitive processing.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

As always. Gazzip is always present for defending lost causes. The most funny, he's not even possessing a neutral room for testing the things out he claims to have experienced. A total fraud of a good adviser in hifi. The most funny : for reaching his goal of a neutral room, he needed a machine to help identify the tiny inflexions in the sound his hearing couldn't make out precisely.

This guy is a joke. I don't believe that we are loosing 3 whole pages responding to this blockhead. Let him believe what he wants.

 

[ellisdj]

As always. Gazzip is always present for defending lost causes. The most funny, he's not even possessing a neutral room for testing the things out he claims to have experienced. A total fraud of a good adviser in hifi. The most funny : for reaching his goal of a neutral room, he needed a machine to help identify the tiny inflexions in the sound his hearing couldn't make out precisely.

This guy is a joke. I don't believe that we are loosing 3 whole pages responding to this blockhead. Let him believe what he wants.

NSA - how rude are you to comment like that - who do think you are to make such a set of comments as you have. Its disgusting actually the more I think about it. And your making stuff up and huge assumptions on things here.

 

[shadders]

As always. Gazzip is always present for defending lost causes. The most funny, he's not even possessing a neutral room for testing the things out he claims to have experienced. A total fraud of a good adviser in hifi. The most funny : for reaching his goal of a neutral room, he needed a machine to help identify the tiny inflexions in the sound his hearing couldn't make out precisely.

This guy is a joke. I don't believe that we are loosing 3 whole pages responding to this blockhead. Let him believe what he wants.

NSA - how rude are you to comment like that - who do think you are to make such a set of comments as you have. Its disgusting actually the more I think about it. And your making stuff up and huge assumptions on things here.

Hi,

Normally I do not respond to this type of post, unless it is about me, but, you have done exactly the same to me.

You stated that I am on drugs, I am a politician, salesman, and you have been very rude to myself, and when I have asked for you to stop the continual personal and libellous remarks, against myself, you have stated you are testing my personality.

I do not understand how you can be disgusted by someone else's comments when they are a much reduced emulation of your own behaviour in other threads.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[chebby]

As always. Gazzip is always present for defending lost causes. The most funny, he's not even possessing a neutral room for testing the things out he claims to have experienced. A total fraud of a good adviser in hifi. The most funny : for reaching his goal of a neutral room, he needed a machine to help identify the tiny inflexions in the sound his hearing couldn't make out precisely.

This guy is a joke. I don't believe that we are loosing 3 whole pages responding to this blockhead. Let him believe what he wants.

NSA - how rude are you to comment like that - who do think you are to make such a set of comments as you have. Its disgusting actually the more I think about it. And your making stuff up and huge assumptions on things here.

 

[ellisdj]

We was in conversation at the point - so to me that was a little bit of banter type of comment as part of the conversation - however you didnt see it like and I apologised.

However NSA has just come into the conversation to comment about and out right insult Gazzip. I feel very strongly about yes

 

[ellisdj]

To be honest Chebby no surprise you are getting involved because you did exactly the same thing as NSA to me.

However you have already gone back on it as you have clearly read what I have written - maybe your reaction is a result of you not understanding the comments because of my terrible gramma...

 

[avole]

a while ago, when I took part in a series of blind tests at a cable-junkie friend's place. As a result, he is no longer a cable junkie and I use whatever cables come with the device, or those the shop gives me as a bonus.

Really, questions about cables usually mean the posers have decided to go for new cables irrespective, so there's little point in trying to dissuade them. You're probably better off telling them to buy the most expensive cables out there because, believing they already have the best, they won't waste any money on them again in the future.

 

[ellisdj]

Noone is asking for anothers opinion on whether they should buy hifi cables or not - I dont recall the last time someone asked that question on this forum?

The many worldwide successful businesses that manufacture and sell hifi cables today and the successful distribution businesses that sell various hifi cables are enough evidence to prove sales are strong and noone is taking any notice of anything negative written in forums such as people do on here

So I dont know why certain people even bother with their relentless activity on the subject because its clear that noone is paying any attention and the only people wasting their time are the people doing the writing.

 

[insider9]

Noone is asking for anothers opinion on whether they should buy hifi cables or not - I dont recall the last time someone asked that question on this forum?

The many worldwide successful businesses that manufacture and sell hifi cables today and the successful distribution businesses that sell various hifi cables are enough evidence to prove sales are strong and noone is taking any notice of anything negative written in forums such as people do on here

I actually have, in the last week. You might have missed it Ellisdj. My thoughts will be in another thread since this one's gone to pot.

In regards to comment #34... recap on house rules

To keep things fun and fair for everyone, we ask you all to read - and expect you to abide by - the following rules.

Members who break the rules will also receive a warning and/or be banned from the site.

1. Members must not post libellous, racist, aggressive or otherwise insulting or abusive remarks about any individual, company or organisation.

Whatever our opinions are I don't think insulting one another accomplishes anything.

 

[Gazzip]

As always. Gazzip is always present for defending lost causes. The most funny, he's not even possessing a neutral room for testing the things out he claims to have experienced. A total fraud of a good adviser in hifi. The most funny : for reaching his goal of a neutral room, he needed a machine to help identify the tiny inflexions in the sound his hearing couldn't make out precisely.

This guy is a joke. I don't believe that we are loosing 3 whole pages responding to this blockhead. Let him believe what he wants.

Time of the month perhaps?

 

[Native_bon]

Why do people get personal when they start to loose an argument or debate. Same old same old. *dash1*

 

[lindsayt]

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?

Coming back to the OP.

1. I don't look for any technical specifications for cables. However I am aware that capacitance can be an issue, so I am not naturally attracted to designs that are likely to have relatively high capacitance.

2. In the past I have borrowed from a hi-fi forum acquaintance. Also borrowed from a dealer. Usually I just buy something, or use something I've been given for free.

3. Speaker cable = non-branded relatively thick conducting core copper multi strand - like 762 or 366 strands or whatever. Interconnects Puresonics I got free with an amplifier plus £1.49 type ebayed cables.

4. No particular budget. If I bought cables for more than £100 I'd be looking for something I could sell on for a modest profit if I didn't think it was worth keeping.

5. RCA interconnects are mostly 0.5m. Some are 1.5m. XLR's range from 1.5m to 10m. Speaker cables range from 9m to 20m. I prefer to place my vinyl sources and valve amps a long way away from my speakers.

I agree with what Gazzips been saying in this thread. I'd also agree that some machines can make certain specific measurements more accurately / repeatably than humans.

My personal take on the measurement thing is that if something sounds better to me it is better. If I need some sort of machine or measurements to tell me which is better - IE when I can't tell which is better by my own listening tests - then it's not worth me spending any money on.

 

[Freddy58]

It's the rugby tomorrow *smile*