|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 10, 2012 22:43:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 23:00:37 GMT
Frans would have a field day with this one !  |
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on May 11, 2012 0:48:55 GMT
Mine us what reference system they are using again! I'm very sure the night and day differences are similar to those I have attended in Hifi shows and meets. I'm moving on quickly as I'm having more fun from my list of to do Hifi thingy than in these type of things as I have already heard enough to be convinced long long ago that subjective is more than objective no matter what the objectivisits or subjectivists said. Bye, bye .............  |
|
|
|
Post by eightdigitword on May 11, 2012 8:14:53 GMT
Good to see that industry people are testing this and not just taking the cash from the cable companies. Really enjoy this sort of thing. Well done stereophile.
The amp swap was disappointing, why did they not start again with the new amp? this voids the test as far as I'm concerned.
Dalethorn, I came to a very similar conclusion after reading the article as you did. overall difference between the $3 cable and $8000 cable were negligible. It was interesting that the two $1000 cables were picked out consistently (not by a huge margin).
statistics is always a messy topic, but steroephile's observations are a little off. Saying that the repeated test (4+7) "results came out nearly the same." is a false statement.
test 4. 41% preferred cable C, 29% cable A and 29% had no preference.
repeating the same blind test later...
test 7. 49% preferred cable C, 41% cable A and 11% had no preference.
Still, great article. thanks for posting this link Dalethorn, i would have missed this. Good stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 8:27:07 GMT
Frans will most likely dispute this, but there are "amplifiers", then there are amplifiers that do sound different. Just because you can't hear differences in a contrived and dodgy setup like this, with one type of amplifier , doesn't mean that the results would have been the same using different amplifiers. For heavens's sake, some members of the audience wiil even get more "on axis" treble than others, and some will get HF at a lower level due to absorption/reflection by the people in front of them etc. Depending on the location of the tweeters,.( usually close to the top of the speaker cabinets) some will be well below the optimum location for good treble, perhaps even going over the top of them! What a farcical setup.  . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 9:13:45 GMT
My imediate observation was that there was no cable tested at a 'real world' price. It may well be the case that a > $1000 cable sounds better than a $3 cable; that wouldn't surprise me particularly. But what about $3 versus $50 or $100? That's surely a more important issue.
If you scroll down to the 'Comments' section of the Stereophile page you'll see that 'Bixby' makes the same point. He (?) says 'Wish they had tested something between the zipcord and the rest of them, which are all in the exotic price range to me. Seems like the most interesting thing that could come out of something like this is not, does the $8000 cable score better than the $3 cable, but where does the $100 cable (or even $300 or...) score? It's about finding that maximum return before the law of diminishing returns.'
And I agree.
Derek
p.s. It's encouraging to see that Cable B at $8000 came out only slightly better than the $3 Cable A. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by eightdigitword on May 11, 2012 9:24:19 GMT
Frans will most likely dispute this, but there are "amplifiers", then there are amplifiers that do sound different. Just because you can't hear differences in a contrived and dodgy setup like this, with one type of amplifier , doesn't mean that the results would have been the same using different amplifiers. For heavens's sake, some members of the audience wiil even get more "on axis" treble than others, and some will get HF at a lower level due to absorption/reflection by the people in front of them etc. Depending on the location of the tweeters,.( usually close to the top of the speaker cabinets) some will be well below the optimum location for good treble, perhaps even going over the top of them! What a farcical setup. . I agree its far from ideal. To conduct a test in a 'perfect' manor would be near impossible and would most likely introduce the 'S' word!, and I don't mean shit. I get the impression that the listeners did not move and would have been subjected to the same advantage/disadvantage throughout. Other than the amp swap I think they done a decent job given what they had. I'd rather see this than more wild speculation and assumption making. I feel it confirms what I thought from my own messing around. Differences in cable are tiny, at best. I'd like to see a repeat of the tests, no amp swap and (as someone mentioned on the page) tests of the same cable, phantom swap. quite surprised that 55% of the listeners used bulk (cheap) cable and that as a group, those who owned expensive (not bulk) cabling favoured the cheap bulk wire over the most expensive cable! nothing in the test was conclusive enough, only proving that the differences were small and not consistent. Looking forward to the interconnect review! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 10:22:02 GMT
Perhaps their choice of source equipment left a lot to be desired too ? A US$499 player (modified or not) using analogue out, and not even into a good DAC ,doesn't inspire too much confidence in me when it comes to revealing differences between cables. Neither do the gushing reports from several reviewers.Players like the Oppo 95 with a Sabre DAC would more than likely eat it for breakfast, and even they , when using analogue Out aren't anywhere near what a good DAC is capable of.
Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 11:48:17 GMT
Differences in cable are tiny, at best Hmmm, can't agree with that. Differences can be very marked indeed, the problem comes when you are deciding on better-or-not. Most audio types will have preferences, dependant on other factors as well, such as the amplifier and speakers being used. Most commonly picked out were the extremes of small gauge compared to large. The small, on the whole, leaning towards faster leaner but lacking focus. Larger generally leaning towards heavier bass, slower feel, lacking sparkle. A massive generalisation but easily heard. This is something I demonstrated many a time to customers. In the end you pays your money and takes your choice. I also agree that the source component was a poor choice for such a test, making the quality of the amps and speakers pretty much superfluous. What the hell was $8K speaker cable doing on the end of a two-bit-source |
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on May 11, 2012 21:06:27 GMT
CJ.
I agree. In fact the silver or copper question is often not one of which sounds the best but which one highlights the highs, mids and lows the listener likes. Your point about guage is also one I have found - heavy guage better bass. I also confess to likely the new cable and sometimes swap for that 'new sound' factor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 7:43:58 GMT
Since my name came up several times I will comment as well (decided to pass on this thread)
I agree with Dale's comments about the test that was NOT done by Stereophile and had the purpose of proving there is an audible difference between LS cables and zipcord using a blind test.
The test itself has some downsides as there were a few things not properly setup IMV.
Downsides are:
Too many people attending.
Pre tests would have to be done to pick out the not correctly perceiving or merely attending for fun participants leaving only those with good hearing to improve stats.
No affordable cables were used.
How much concentration was there.
Was switching immediate or with a small delay (or after completed playing a song ?)
What's good:
They appeared to have things level matched.
Blind.
Statistics (also about room position and impressions) were logged AND used.
They did some measurements but did not disclose what was what in that graph.
The comments about the gear being at fault (statisticaly not relevant differences and in most cases 1/3 of the persons could not hear and indicated that.
2/3 thought they could and went either way with a marginal shifting towards the expensive side.
Only 1 listener picked the silver cable in 2 of the 3 tests it was in but failed to detect it compared to a zip cord.
One listener picked the heavy gauge correctly from the zip cord but not from the other tests.
One listener 'correctly' picked the zip cord in test 7 but obviously not in the 4 other tests it was starring in.
Test 7 was the reverse of test 4 (only amps were switched in this case)
It appears that no-one could correctly determine the zip cord everytime.
Bass: zip cord and silver got equal votes
mids: thick copper was better than silver
highs: thick copper was better than silver, zip cord and silver got the same amount of votes.
This can put question marks regarding the highs of silver being noticeably better than zipcord.
Zip cord has the lowest capacitance but arguably (not measured ?) the highest resistance.
There seemed to be a max 0.2dB level difference between cables.
If the switching was immediate during a song the zipcord with the highest damping could be picked out where the loudest one (not the zipcord in any case) would be preferred.
Level matching would have been needed in this case, not if delayed A-B was done.
The most interesting observation was that those that bought expensive cables, which are usually hifi enthusiasts wanting the best determined by ear ?, as a group picked the zip cord as best sounding cable !
In their defence as a group they were able to pick out one cable (zip cord) in this case butt liked it best.
The remarks about the test gear not being revealing enough as no DAC and computer was used but merely a modified analog out of a well liked CDP and the amps not being good enough..
What amps needed to be used and would reveal more ?
Since when are planar speakers not revealing enough.
Those that attended never complained about the test setup (except for swapping amps)
The fact that more revealing gear had shown bigger differences can be questioned.
In the many subjective reports out there it is very clear that marked improvements can be had with cable swapping even with low quality gear.
The same with certain files that were discriminated subjectively which what was reported as low end gear as well.
The positioning of the listener (row, left-right) is of importance in pereception of sound BUT is irrelevant for detecting differences as the conditions are the same (unless people swapped chairs halway during the forced upon break).
All in all the same as most other tests...
It's HOW you interpret the results that determines if one get's 'confirmation'.
Another interesting test sequence would have been zip cord vs zipcord.
What spread would that have given ... a 1/3 or close to it again ?
Also it would be interesting to have repeated the test (with other subjects) where one had mentioned which cable had been playing and compare the results to the blind test.
(This has been done in the past already)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 8:14:59 GMT
Frans
Once again.you have jumped to the wrong conclusions.
You have already admitted there were too many present.
For serious listening you need to be closer to the "sweet spot"
For OTHER people to reliably pick differences in a scenario such as this, you need to have better than average gear, otherwise you will end up with the result you prefer. i.e. no differences evident of any statistical significance.
NOWHERE did I mention a computer. I am simply saying that the US$499 BR player via Analogue Out would be far less revealing than the same player via SPDIF into a high quality DAC. A better player to use would have been be the later Oppo 95 with a Sabre DAC, and even then, preferably via SPDIF into a high quality DAC.
As for the large gap in time between the original amp biting the dust, enough said, and even then it may have been performing quite poorly for a while before it expired.
The whole thing was poorly executed and a waste of time, except perhaps for those who insist that the results obtained were the right ones.
Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 10:03:45 GMT
Another starnge part of the test was those with the best listening position mostly ruled.. no difference.
I agree about the crowd.
The test wasn't set-up very well and had a clear objective to prove the existence of differences in a (by skeptics approved) test.
The test has some loopholes though and can be equally conclusive for believers and skeptics.
I think the gear used was better than average...
Not many people having that good planar speakers and amps (well one blew a fuse, maybe not that good)
The oppo had been modified... this is usually done by audiophiles wanting the best.
The amp probably blew when someone accidenatlly shorted the output changing cables (I reckon)
Since another amp was used and differences still were in favor of one of them being by amps A or B tells me the differences between the amps were smaller as the perceived differences between the cables.
Jumping to the wrong conclusions is my specialty and proud of it.
It was a nice try though ... the test.
The needed better than average gear to detect differences have been debunked by many many subjective reported differences between cables found by many using an ipod to an amp using HD201 headphones or worse.
Hardly revealing hires gear I should say.
The used gear seems good enough to me and those who attended the test and actully heard it.
Ah well we only have slightly different standpoints... no biggie.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 12, 2012 12:04:53 GMT
Despite the very limited and flawed tests, the observations here cover a lot of ground and should be read by Stereophile to prep them for the next round. In the late 1970's using various speakers (Advents, LS3/5A, Dahlquist DQ10, FMI 80), I could switch between 18 ga electrical cord, 12 or 14 ga solid wire, low cap. and high cap. premium cords (don't remember brands, but nothing over $25 USD/foot in today's money) - and the differences were immediately obvious and dramatic, in the bass at the very least, and in the highs when capacitance was a factor. I don't recall amps making nearly the difference that the cables made. I used Crown DC300A, Yamaha integrated, a couple others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 12:12:51 GMT
Frans
What I am suggesting is that for many people, small differences heard in a comfortable and familiar home environment, may not be adequate when in an environment like this, with equipment that they are not intimately familiar with.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 12, 2012 16:27:42 GMT
Frans What I am suggesting is that for many people, small differences heard in a comfortable and familiar home environment, may not be adequate when in an environment like this, with equipment that they are not intimately familiar with. Alex I did not hear small differences between common electrical cord and audiophile cables. Nor between 18 ga stranded wire and 12 ga solid wire. The differences could be heard clearly by any non-audiophile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 22:54:37 GMT
That sounds more like an inadequacy in the output stage of the ipod ! You can get the same sensitivity to cables when you bypass the buffered output of many DACS, quite often ending up with DC out as well.  |
|
rowuk
Been here a while! 
Pain in the ass, ex-patriot yank living in the land of sauerkraut
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by rowuk on Aug 17, 2013 23:13:27 GMT
Well, I guess that Stereophile hasn't done any of their paying advertisers any favors........
We all know that the resistance and capacitance in cables can affect the coupling between the amps and speakers. Any of the "better" speaker development software takes the resistance of cables and crossover into account when calculating Fs.
So yes, I believe that there can be audible differences. They are explainable however. I will disagree that planar speakers are good for this type of test. I would think that conventional cones would show more due to voicecoil resonance effects.
66% is not statistically significant. Real differences are generally 80% or more.
In theory, advanced amplifier and speaker design should insure that there are no interface issues. Just imagine if you could only use a microsoft mouse if windows were installed.............
|
|
.
