Measure it with your ears.
This is, after all, how and why we listen to music.
Now we are back to it being subjective not objective
*runs away*
Bastard.
Well, it doesn’t. Those tests with frequency analysers and so on
You can however, as suggested, use the scientific methodology to test it without needing frequency analysers etc as has already been mentioned.
Just get someone else to switch the wires out so you dont know which is which and repeat several times and see if you can reliably identify which one is better.
Looking at that russandrews site their objections to ABX testing is a curious one.
Actually, no, we aren't. There is a difference between "I think that this sounds better" and "I can reliably tell that this sounds better."
the microphone changes the environment :-).
It's the same microphone; in the same place - all your changing is the cable connected to the speaker. So actually; I don't buy this one bit.
Tone and volume are intrinsically linked; this is why I mentioned the volume change 🙂 I'm not arguing there isn't a difference between bell wire and something appropriately sized. Just that the difference probably is more likely to be down to losses (as Cougar says; the worry is more about melting the wire) rather than any magic sound colouring
indeed - double blind trials will tell you. But then you are entering a world of weirdness 'cos the brain is a funny thing. Like the woman who could tell colours by touch. Like visions and telepathy etc. If they can tell the which cable is which is it the sound or are they getting the info from something else
And for shits and giggles, if it's a blind test, swap the polarity round on one of the speakers! That will make far more difference than any cable (for the worse) and see what they say. 😀
the microphone changes the environment :-). Its a really nitpicking thing but any attempt to measure something changes it. Observer effect I believe its known as
I know you wish to believe that you are correct (as with everything) but nope….nope….nope..
Industry standard klippel speaker measuring device
stevehine - but the microphone is not hearing the same as you are as by putting the microphone in there you change the acoustics of the room. so the microphone is not measuring what you hear.
Observer effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
State my ears are in now tho
Honestly TJ, that's the other elephant in the room. To wit, most of the correspondents here are likely more Indian elephant than African elephant. Even if the answer to "does cable make a difference?" is an emphatic "yes," our middle-aged middle-class whiny cockbag ears are probably too sodded to hear it.
Meanwhile, teenagers with their perfect teenage ears are listening to music on a phone speaker.
If they can tell the which cable is which is it the sound or are they getting the info from something else
You should be able to make it safe from other factors. Have the cables covered up with something that even an audiophile agrees wont interfere with the sound (or maybe blindfold them) and have two assistants so the one swapping the cables has absolutely zero contact with the subject and so minimise the risk of tells.
somafunk - observer effect is real. sure thats a good standard test but it cannot replicate what your ears do.
There is a difference between “I think that this sounds better” and “I can reliably tell that this sounds better.”
Indeed. It reminds me of some tests that were done a few years ago on oboes. Basically plastic and resin bodied oboes are considered inferior to wooden ones. A blind test was set up and listeners (including oboe professionals) were asked to rate different oboes for sound quality and to identify the material. The first part was easy, it's subjective. The second part came to the conclusion that no-one could accurately and repeatedly identify the oboes by material.
Just a thought, I wonder how many "audiophiles" who fuss so much about speaker cables ever bother to think about the internal cabling.
but the microphone is not hearing the same as you are as by putting the microphone in there you change the acoustics of the room.
If you can tell the difference aurally between a room containing a microphone and a room not containing a microphone, you can have my bike.
And even if that were the case, your baseline is "microphone in the room and switched off."
so the microphone is not measuring what you hear.
It doesn't need to. The (hypothetical) microphone is measuring audio signal, what's measuring what you hear is your ears.
Just a thought, I wonder how many “audiophiles” who fuss so much about speaker cables ever bother to think about the internal cabling.
I have a cambridge audio amp where the internal wiring is totally symmetrical - so the right and left channels not only are identical electrically but physically. Its always amused me
Cougar says he can't 'science' but what we are talking about is sciencing. Any results that you might to record have to be interpreted and evaluated.
And you have to remember, I'm not a hi-fi buff or an audiophile. I like decent sound, but only on a budget. I'm spending the minimum I can. I have Cambridge Audio stuff from circa 2000 that was bought used or in one case shop damaged and repaired. And I'm critical rather than gullible.
I now stream music - I have tried HD audio (uncompressed) and I can absolutely tell the difference, but in interesting ways. Not that I can hear more frequencies or anything, but MP3 audio via headphones makes my head hurt after about 20 minutes, whereas uncompressed audio doesn't. I'm sure Cougar knows how MP3 works, it relies on dropping frequencies you cannot hear when other things are happening - but for me, whilst I cannot exactly identify the missing sound it has an effect on my brain. This apparently doesn't affect many people though judging by the numbers of people I see walking around listening to what must be compressed audio all day.
BUT
I cannot tell any difference between HD and Ultra HD (on Amazon). If I were swallowing any old bullshit, surely I'd claim that Ultra HD was better?
I'm not lusting after any new hifi stuff, I have zero interested - the only thing I bought recently was a streamer, so I could ditch the CDs and get the shelves out of the living room. However, it sounds pretty different to the CD player. Much sharper, clearer, and the frequency response is wider, but less warmth. An interesting side effect is that having wired the streamer directly into the power amps, rather than through a pre-amp, is that it can be on very low volume but still sound as if it's on higher volume. I keep thinking its loud but then I realise I can talk very quietly and still be heard.
There is an awful lot going on between the TCP packets coming into my streamer and my conscious brain assessing it.
cougar - read up on observer effect. Even a microphone switched on or switched off will make infinitesimal changes
but the microphone is not hearing the same as you are as by putting the microphone in there you change the acoustics of the room. so the microphone is not measuring what you hear.
But we're comparing two things; not measuring a single. So the observer effect is present in both setups A + B - or are you claiming the presence of the microphone somehow negates the differences in the cables ?
No - all I am saying is in physics it is accepted that trying to measure something changes it. thats all. so you can never accurately measure a sound.
Its a tiny effect in this case and I would very much doubt audible
edit - and again we are back at subjective ( sounds better) and objective ( what can be measured)
mp3 (and many audio formats) are lossy; they absolutely do introduce artefacts. Hell; even 24bit digital audio introduces some quantisation noise; it's just a tiny amount. And different sources will undoubtedly sound different.
But we're talking about speaker cable; the final 3m of high power signal; It's the least technically important piece of the kit (maybe with the exception of the mains cable)
I’m sure Cougar knows how MP3 works,
I do, and not all mp3 is equal. You can be approaching lossless or sound like it's coming from the other end of a landline. Gonna need more information than "mp3" to comment further.
MP3 audio via headphones makes my head hurt after about 20 minutes
I do get this though. I have a similar issue with fluorescent strip lights.
cougar – read up on observer effect. Even a microphone switched on or switched off will make infinitesimal changes
Who cares?
I had the same album ( exodus) in 3 formats. vinyl, CD and MP3 you could hear a difference between them played thru the same setup. MP3 was obvious ( less stereo separation, less range) vinyl or CD - sounded different. I would guess the CD was more accurate but sounding "better" - simply a matter of tastes.
@tj - ok; so having the mic in front of the speaker changes the system. But if you are using the microphone to compare the output of the speaker when two different cables are connected *and nothing else changes* - then you have controlled for that.
It might change the response of the system as a whole; but it's changing the response in the exact same way for either cable.
I moved into a house and three music systems ended up in the same room
Sanyo mini disk tape and cd player that looked like separates but wasn't. The wire to the speakers can't have been 2mm thick. Thinner than the bell wire my folks use for their door bell.
2nd hand Yamaha natural sound system with thick cable and fancy wires. I had stopped by a car boot on the way back from collecting these and bough a pair of speakers for £5.
Bottom of the range marantz separates with equivalent speakers and directional copper cable.
I could hear the speakers sounded a touch different to each other. None was better or worse just different for 30 seconds until it sounded like music.
I couldn't hear any difference at all between any of the wires.
I could barely hear the difference between a tape and a cd of bloodsexsugarmagic. I'd bought the cd as I'd worn the tape out on under the bridge learning it.
That's when I realised I will never need to spend anything more for "better" hifi.
In my current house the big thick wire wasn't long enough to get to the speakers. So I spliced it with some tiny thin wire. Sounds fine!
I have a cambridge audio amp where the internal wiring is totally symmetrical – so the right and left channels not only are identical electrically but physically.
I should have specified - internal wiring in the speakers.
As for a mic changing room acoustics I would imagine if you attempted to quantify that it would be in the region of nine tenths of three fifths of **** all.
slowoldman - Gnats bawhair is the correct unit for measuring that.
Stevehine - but the microphone is not "hearing" the same as your ears. Observer effect and many other issues. so that can give you a "more accurate" or "same accuracy" but cannot tell you "better" - only your ears and the processing in your head can tell you that
In currently doing some work for a big, well known music studio here in Munich.
I'll ask the guy what he thinks, seeing as he is able to talk for ****ing hours about frequency, resonance and some other terms that I have no idea about.
Spent the last few months building various abstractly shaped boxes, frames and other things to catch the sound/direct the sound.
Gonna need more information than “mp3” to comment further.
The MP3 that Amazon serves up, which I think is 320kbps, but it's the same all the time regardless of bit rate.
cougar - another elephant in the room - we have an awful lot of processing between the ears and our consciousness. do our heads work at different bitrates?
We process out background noise, alter thresholds at which we hear things and react differently to different frequencies. We also alter the threshold art which we hear depending on ambient noise. If you have tinnitus as I do then this processing is damaged
Cougar "If you were going to give me a grand I’d come round to your house and run the experiment myself.
We could video it. If you can reliably tell the difference between say three sets of speaker cables in a fair blind test, we’d make a **** lot more than a grand on the back of it. You’d have places like Enjoy the Music selling a kidney for that sort of footage."
Now why the hell would I dream of doing that (you need to keep up more) I've always believed that blind testing in audio doesn't work (look back at my previous posts) so I'm hardly likely to give anyone a grand to do something I don't believe works am I.
Also if your going to quote people at least have to decency to not miss of part of the post just so you can try to score another point or whatever the reason was....
The whole context I said "Cause I could tell you I have done it and proven it but I know you wouldn’t believe me no matter what I said – and you would be perfectly correct in doing so, its the internet after all." And if you had quoted all of that your cheese sandwich response would have been pointless.
So I'm done, waste of time...
why the hell would I dream of doing that
To win a grand if you're so sure you're right?
I’ve always believed that blind testing in audio doesn’t work
Believe what you like but that's just special pleading. What makes audio different from the rest of the natural universe?
Either you can hear a difference or you can't, it's really that simple and and this is easily testable. If you can then great, let's prove it, we'll both be rich. If you can't then what we're left with is expensive snake oil.
And your increasingly defensive tone rather sounds to these old ears like you suspect it's the latter and don't want to admit it.
Did you read the article I linked to earlier? You really should.
if your going to quote people
I'm not selectively quoting to point score (hell, I don't need to when you're trotting out such nonsense) but rather using a short quote as a reference point as to what I'm replying to in a thread where many people are talking. I dislike verbatim quotes within verbatim quotes that you get on some forums. Your full quote is available previously and you, I and other readers all can see what you wrote.
do our heads work at different bitrates?
Demonstrably.
do our heads work at different bitrates?
More seriously,
Our heads are decidedly analogue and bitrate is a digital measure. I'm not sure as you can easily apply one to the other.
head are binary - its all open and close gates. Thats all your brain is - a series of switches
Either you can hear a difference or you can’t, it’s really that simple and and this is easily testable. If you can then great, let’s prove it, we’ll both be rich. If you can’t then what we’re left with is expensive snake oil.
Yes - blind testing is the only way to know.
head are binary – its all open and close gates. Thats all your brain is – a series of switches
Perhaps, but.
Catch a ball.
Now program a computer to catch a ball.
Brains are analogue computers. A neuron adds up the signals it receives on its synapses then if they exceed a certain value it fires, and it's connected to other neurons. That bit's simple. The software however is written as connections between the neurons and the thresholds themselves, and it's phenomenally complicated - the most complex thing known to science by a long way. The number of neurons is similar to the number of stars in the galaxy, and they are interconnected in a way that creates software in a way we can't even begin to understand.
So think about that next time you talk about science being black and white - and remember that science only exists inside people's brains. The universe is outside, but human understanding of it is on the inside.
like this?
Seriously tho - your brain is just on heck of a lot of on / off switches and gates
The universe is outside, but human understanding of it is on the inside.
And between them is a load of glitchy buggy software. thank goodness its parallel processing!
think about that next time you talk about science being black and white
Has that actually happened here?
like this?
You coded that, did you?
I wasn't suggesting it was impossible, rather that it was insanely complex to define in comparison to your average child who can just do it without thinking.
Also, that video is amazing, and from ten years ago. Thanks for that.
Cougar
Full MemberPerhaps, but.
Catch a ball.
Now program a computer to catch a ball.
There are people on this forum that could definitely program a computer to catch a ball, but probably couldn't catch a ball
🤣
Good point, well made.
.
Unless you have two-way communication then as soon as digital audio starts erroring beyond any ECC it’s game over.
Nope again you are wrong in a lot of systems it will interpolate between the last samples it got. This reduces the quality as the interpolated value won't be 100% accurate.
This is why high quality CD transports can sound better/different to cheaper ones. The "Its all 1s and 0s" is not as simple its there its perfect if its not its not.
There are also lots of other sources of electrical noise outside of a factory or industrial environment.
@Cougar That said I am not saying you should spend loads of money on Ethernet cables 🙂
