WHF speaker cable review technique

[steve_1979]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

There is an excellent software package (free) that records audio signals before and after a change, then compares the two recordings for differences. So in the case of a speaker cable, a recording is made with an existing cable, the cable replaced then another recording made.
The software does some clever time alignment and level matching, then saves a difference file - the difference between the two recordings. If the difference file is effectively silent, then cable change has not made a difference to the sound.

The smart thing is that no judgement is made about what to measure - effectively everything is measured, and any difference detected.

http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

 

[steve_1979]

IMO it would make an interesting magazine article if WHF were to give this a try and print the results.

Would any of the WHF editors or review team care to comment on this suggestion?

 

[ifor]

Nice idea, but see page 8 & 9.

Tests made to date using microphones recording output signals from loudspeakers have not been successful because of noise and perhaps other factors. Tests using analog signal sources such as tape recorders or phonograph turntables are unlikely to be repeatable enough to be successful.

 

[andyjm]

Nice idea, but see page 8 & 9.

Tests made to date using microphones recording output signals from loudspeakers have not been successful because of noise and perhaps other factors. Tests using analog signal sources such as tape recorders or phonograph turntables are unlikely to be repeatable enough to be successful.

...which is why a repeatable source is required (a CD player is ideal), and why measurements have to be taken at the speaker terminals, not by placing a microphone in front of the speaker.

While it is an assumption, it does not seem too much of a stretch to say that if the signal at the back of the speaker is unchanged, then the sound coming out of the speaker is unchanged as well.

I do not think that either of your points (raised by the author as limitations of the system) in any way invalidate the approach.

 

[andyjm]

IMO it would make an interesting magazine article if WHF were to give this a try and print the results.

Would any of the WHF editors or review team care to comment on this suggestion?

As far as I am aware, WHF do not use any form of test equipment (other than their ears).

http://www.whathifi.com/how-we-test

I can only assume the money they have spent on their test rooms went on the acoustic treatment and the decor.

It is dissapointing that no magazine (that I know of) has decided to run with this technique, but it would be foolish to expect a magazine to employ a testing approach which may threaten their advertising revenue.

If I was running WHF, I certainly wouldn't.

 

[ifor]

Nice idea, but see page 8 & 9.

Tests made to date using microphones recording output signals from loudspeakers have not been successful because of noise and perhaps other factors. Tests using analog signal sources such as tape recorders or phonograph turntables are unlikely to be repeatable enough to be successful.

...which is why a repeatable source is required (a CD player is ideal), and why measurements have to be taken at the speaker terminals, not by placing a microphone in front of the speaker.

While it is an assumption, it does not seem too much of a stretch to say that if the signal at the back of the speaker is unchanged, then the sound coming out of the speaker is unchanged as well.

I do not think that either of your points (raised by the author as limitations of the system) in any way invalidate the approach.

Fair enough. You read it in more detail than I.

 

[steve_1979]

It was a bit silly of me to start this thread on a Saturday morning when the WHF staff wouldn't be in work.

So this is just a quick 'bump' to bring it thread to their attention. 🙂

 

[matt49]

It was a bit silly of me to start this thread on a Saturday morning when the WHF staff wouldn't be in work.

So this is just a quick 'bump' to bring it thread to their attention. 🙂

Steve, I don't mean to be critical: I'm totally with you on the value of the Audio DiffMaker program (as I said on another thread recently). But do you think WHF is the kind of publication that would want to do what you're proposing? Is this really WHF's market?

:cheers:

Matt

 

[BenLaw]

It was a bit silly of me to start this thread on a Saturday morning when the WHF staff wouldn't be in work.

So this is just a quick 'bump' to bring it thread to their attention. 🙂

I'm not sure any of them really read the forum much any more. I certainly don't think this thread will have them scrabbling for their keyboards.

 

[spiny norman]

It was a bit silly of me to start this thread on a Saturday morning when the WHF staff wouldn't be in work.

Yeah, 'cos they fight each other to answer questions on the forum during the week, don't they? :rofl:

 

[The_Lhc]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

There is an excellent software package (free) that records audio signals before and after a change, then compares the two recordings for differences. So in the case of a speaker cable, a recording is made with an existing cable, the cable replaced then another recording made.

The software does some clever time alignment and level matching, then saves a difference file - the difference between the two recordings. If the difference file is effectively silent, then cable change has not made a difference to the sound.

The smart thing is that no judgement is made about what to measure - effectively everything is measured, and any difference detected.

http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

I might be missing something here but if, after changing nothing but a cable, you have to match the levels then surely the cable's already made a difference?

 

[The_Lhc]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

There is an excellent software package (free) that records audio signals before and after a change, then compares the two recordings for differences. So in the case of a speaker cable, a recording is made with an existing cable, the cable replaced then another recording made.

The software does some clever time alignment and level matching, then saves a difference file - the difference between the two recordings. If the difference file is effectively silent, then cable change has not made a difference to the sound.

The smart thing is that no judgement is made about what to measure - effectively everything is measured, and any difference detected.

http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

I might be missing something here but if, after changing nothing but a cable, you have to match the levels then surely the cable's already made a difference?

 

[fr0g]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

There is an excellent software package (free) that records audio signals before and after a change, then compares the two recordings for differences. So in the case of a speaker cable, a recording is made with an existing cable, the cable replaced then another recording made.

The software does some clever time alignment and level matching, then saves a difference file - the difference between the two recordings. If the difference file is effectively silent, then cable change has not made a difference to the sound.

The smart thing is that no judgement is made about what to measure - effectively everything is measured, and any difference detected.

http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

I might be missing something here but if, after changing nothing but a cable, you have to match the levels then surely the cable's already made a difference?

And if matching levels makes the resulting sound identical, yet you have purchased based on an ever so slight volume increase, then the test is surely a good one?

 

[Dave_]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

That's a bold statement..

 

[alchemist 1]

This is an interesting post from another thread on this forum:

There is an excellent software package (free) that records audio signals before and after a change, then compares the two recordings for differences. So in the case of a speaker cable, a recording is made with an existing cable, the cable replaced then another recording made.
The software does some clever time alignment and level matching, then saves a difference file - the difference between the two recordings. If the difference file is effectively silent, then cable change has not made a difference to the sound.

The smart thing is that no judgement is made about what to measure - effectively everything is measured, and any difference detected.

http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

Your doing this on purpose Aren't you.'' Come on admit it''.......... :shame:

 

[steve_1979]

Your doing this on purpose Aren't you.'' Come on admit it''.......... :shame:

Doing what? (genuine question) 🙂

I certainly started the thread on purpose and the first two posts explain what it's about.

 

[steve_1979]

IMO it would make an interesting magazine article if WHF were to give this a try and print the results.

Would any of the WHF editors or review team care to comment on this suggestion?

Any comment WHF?

 

[John Duncan]

Seems not.

 

[steve_1979]

Seems not.

Surprise surprise!

Even if they're not interested in comparing cables using the method suggested why is there no reply to the question asked in post 2 ?

 

[spiny norman]

Even if they're not interested in comparing cables using the method suggested why is there no reply to the question asked in post 2 ?

Think you may be confusing them with people who give a damn what goes on on these forums

 

[puravtech]

Hahaha... Totally.

 

[MakkaPakka]

Should I read another cable thread on the forums or should I go in the demo room and watch porn a giant 4k TV while eating Doritos and drinking a nice cuppa?

Not much of a choice is it.

 

[Alec]

Seems not.

Surprise surprise!

Even if they're not interested in comparing cables using the method suggested why is there no reply to the question asked in post 2 ?

Sorry Steve, but I doubt they are even debating which of them is going to give you 10p, or that any of them are guving their danders a poke with a wet flannel.