Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
S888Wheel wrote:
> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 6/18/2004 10:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cav9t8020or@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>>Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cat60g0dm7@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
>>>>two
>>>>> signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
>>>>with
>>>>> the same associated equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
>>>>difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
>>>>so sensitive.
>>>
>>> It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
>>> differrence.
>>
>>My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
>>measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.
>>
>>Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?
>
> Do you think green pens create a measurable difference in the output of a CD
> player?
Fine, I agree that green pen effects are not mesaureable.
> Do you think anything Peter Belt ever invented created a measurable
> difference in any audio signal?
Don't know about his tweaks. Have not heard of them until now.
>
>>
>>> One saves themselves the rigor of doing any further testing. So it
>>> still makes sense to start there.
>>
>>Only in principle. Not in practice.
>
> Fine. If you want to do elaborate DBTs for audible differences with and without
> green pen and Peter Belt tweaks knock yourself out. I still think a simpler
> solution is to measure the effect those products have on the signal to see if
> there is any reason to go forward with any further investigation. Your time
> your dime.
Now try to measure the difference between the output of a CD player,
playing two CD's that are otherwise equal except for the green pen
markings. You think that is easy to do? It seems like you under-estimate
the difficulty in making accurate technical measurements.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one
>>>>3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are
>>>>clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so
>>>>in delay.
>>>
>>> A delay is not inherently a difference in the signal.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Explained further down in my post.
>
> What about a difference in phase shift?
>
> That's different.
Uh, a delay results in a phase shift. There is a difference in phase
shift between those cables.
>
> What about the 0.001dB
>>in level due to the difference in resistance?
>
> That is different as well.
That could easily be due to the one inch difference in cable.
>
> How about the differences
>>in resistance, capacitance and inductance?
>
> All different than a simple time delay.
But all caused by a one inch difference in cable. You see my point?
>
>>
>>> Heck you can measure
>>> differnt components days apart and there is a substantial delay but the
>>signal
>>> is what it is each time.
>>
>>No, the analogy is incorrect.
>
> No it's not.
>
> One could measure those two cables at any
>>time, at any place, with any set of accurate instruments and get the
>>same difference in measurements. These differences are repeatable, and
>>objective.
>
> That's fine, but if the only difference is the time delay than it is not a
> difference in signal content.
Difference in time delay = difference in phase shift= measureable
difference.
>
>>
>>>
>>> It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that
>>>>there is a sonic difference between those two.
>>>
>>> It would take a mistake in one's impression to say there is an audible
>>> difference if the only measurable difference is a nano second delay.
>>
>>There, you are beginning to make the point for me. You are providing a
>>juegment call that a nanosec. delay does not cause an *audible*
>>difference. Just like I may say that a difference in level of 0.1 dB is
>>not an audible difference, but would everyone agree?
>
> No. Everyone rarely agrees on anything in audio.
>
Obviously, and that was why I said finding a measureable difference does
not mean much. And many tweaks, like changing resistors, capacitors,
different cables, result in measureable differences.
>>
>>Of course, I agree that that delay is not audible, but nonetheless there
>>is a *measureable* difference.
>>
>>The difficulty is in agreeing what is an inaudible but measureable
>>difference.
>
> As I have said so many times now. I suggested that one *start* with checking
> for measurable differences. If none exist then there is no need to go further.
> I *never* said that any measurable difference is proof of an audible
> difference. It is proof at best of a *possibility* of an audible difference. A
> possibility that may need further investigation.
>
>>
>>Another example. Two preamps of the same make, model and specs. One has
>>an output impedance of 200 ohms. The other 202 ohms. Clearly there is a
>>measureable difference. Is it audible?
Well?
>>
>>
>>> Even if
>>> the comparisons are supposed to be syncronized. If they are not syncronized
>>> there is no measurable difference is there since such delays are irrelevent
>>to
>>> the content of the signal.
>>
>>You are making a judgment call on what constitiutes an audible
>>difference. By the way, that is the kind of calls that a lot of the more
>>scientific-minded have tried to make (like one can't tell differences in
>>level finer than 0.1dB, or one can't hear above 20 KHz), and a lot of
>>so-called golden-ear audiphiles do not agree with.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are
>>>>detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level
>>>>differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible
>>>>by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would
>>>>agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly
>>>>easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I said never said measurable differences were the end, only the start. If
>>there
>>> is no measurable difference it is the start and end. In some cases some
>>time
>>> and effort can be saved.
>>>
>>
>>Very, very few cases. It's better to go straight to controlled listening
>>tests, IMO.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Fine. Have fun with the Peter Belt tweaks. They'll waste about a week of your
> time though.
Actually I am not interested in personally measuring differences, or
doing DBT's, when it comes to debunk myths, if that has not been obvious
in my posts. I firmly believe that the proponents of those tweaks should
provide proof. But between making measaurements and doing DBT's, I
believe the latter to be much more effective, since there is so much
disagreement on what measureable differences mean.
/www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/english/engc_navfr.html
a7Bc.72457$eu.43358@attbi_s02...
Facebook
Twitter