Archimago measures Ethernet cables

[frednork]

3 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

And to elaborate on the bolded latter part of my quote, what I mean is when I read them say "I blind tested X or Y and could easily tell them apart" - I don't believe them. Not when all publicly conducted DBTs (of whatever calibre) fail to reproduce it.

Well, that is fair enough and would not chide you for that. Unless the methodology is clearly stated and the people conducting it can be trusted its hard to make an assessment. 

 

Will have a quick look over the lnks in the article and give some preliminary feedback.

[Stereophilus]

10 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

I did not say that, what I said was not a single one has shown any effect when questionable changes were made. So either they're all badly conducted, or something else is going on.

I think @frednorkwas hoping you would pick out 1 or 2 of the studies for critical appraisal.  Critical appraisal of 50+ studies would take a lot of time.

[Ittaku]

Just now, frednork said:

Well, that is fair enough and would not chide you for that. Unless the methodology is clearly stated and the people conducting it can be trusted its hard to make an assessment. 

 

Will have a quick look over the lnks in the article and give some preliminary feedback.

Sure thing, but one thing to point out.

 

12 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

So either they're all badly conducted, or something else is going on.

Note what I've bolded. It could either be that there is no difference, or it's something else - meaning it could be impossible to tell subtle differences under ABX testing for whatever reason, but they are most certainly never "night and day" differences in reality, or they'd reliably be detected - like telling apart different speakers.

[Guest rmpfyf]

.
 

Edited March 23, 2021 by rmpfyf

[sir sanders zingmore]

12 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

In general no.  Poor implementation usually leads to more variability between test subjects, leading to a statistical null result (potentially a false negative).  This is a very common issue in DBT.  However specific methodological issues can end to erroneous results, such as the situation you describe where blinding is not properly done.  This latter scenario is usually much rarer.

 

I'm interested in this idea. Can you tell me what you mean by "more variability between test subjects" and what is the mechanism by which this leads to false negatives?

[Steffen]

3 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

 

No, others have said they disagree but have not challenges. 'Amir said so' is not a challenge, though you're welcome to it.

 

As stated, DSP is not a trivial field.

 

Happy to accept legitimate challenges. Yet to see one.

 

And if anyone's happy with what knowledge they believe in, all power to 'em. 

 

 

Don’t turn this around. It was you rejecting what Archimago and Amir have done, simply by asserting it’s wrong. You need to substantiate your objections. Saying that DSP is a complex field does not count.

 

And no, people are not happy with the knowledge they have, that’s why threads like this exist.

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 hours ago, frednork said:

 

That is a fair point and my thinking on this is that the magnitude of  difference they are referring to is relative to their current baseline which may be relatively stable and as they listen a lot they train their hearing to get used to that baseline, until they introduce the new thing that "blows them away" (ie things sound different), So for them it seems like a big difference. For others it may seem very minor or even nonexistant.  It just depends on what you are comparing to as the reference baseline. 

 

From my perspective the differences I hear with these types of cables are mostly in the clarity and solidity of things farfield in the soundstage (or phantom image) as well as a level of "relaxedness" in the sound.  The quality of this image depends on the quality of the system (not unexpected) but also ,and even moreso the room and how the sound coming from the speakers spreads through the room.  i would also say that the further you sit from your speakers the better your room needs to perform.

 

If I sit pretty close to my 180cm tall speakers  (and look like a bit of a dick) I get a highly resolved soundstage and can perceive differences in soundstage with ethernet changes. If I sit further  back (in the way a lot of people have their systems setup (which definitely looks less dicklike) I find it more difficult to perceive differences.  I dont think the differences are necessarily huge and wouldnt expect someone that is not used to listening for soundstage changes to pick them up.  The other thing i would say is that often people say that to hear these types of differences you need batlike golden eared perfect hearing.  My experience is that the differences are not frequency dependant and as long as you are not highly impaired in your ability to locate where a sound is coming from it will be hearable with an appropriately setup system.

 

Even if all other aspects of the setup are superb if the room is contributing negatively the ability to hear a difference is highly diminished  and I have heard setups with stellar equipment where the room swamps the presentation and it sounds pretty awful.  

 

Something that might be interesting to try is to optimise a setup for soundstage or phantom . It may result in a different setup for many.

 

Not wanting to teach anyone how to suck eggs but for those that haven't chased a better soundstage, I highly recommend it and, here are some ideas from my personal soundstage quest.

 

1. place your speakers in a symmetrical room or failing that a symmetrical part of a bigger room. Hopefully the room is not too echoey and has a reasonable amount of soft furnishings to prevent ringing.  If the room has a signifcant level of ring then not sure if it worth continuing until that is remedied.

2. ensure your speakers are at least 1m from each wall,

3. that they are then optimised within the space left for them to go for tonality and low frequency room effects (eg not equidistant from both walls, etc)

4. they will most likely need to be toed in quite a bit to keep the sweet spot as big as possible and give your speakers the best possible chance of a smooth frequency response and also increase the delay of the first reflection (especially for monopole speakers)

5.  sit in a equidistant triangle with the speakers or not too far behind where it sounds best to you for imaging. (this will most likely make you look like a dick)

6. Put up with (most likely) compromised bass response in a region that will be dictated by the size of the room that is less preferable than where you normally have your speakers setup or fix that with dsp/subs if you can

 

Try that setup for a few weeks and listen to lots of stuff. Then go back to the old setup and see if you can live with the loss of soundstage. I couldnt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's interesting that different people have different priorities when it comes to their systems. I know some people who focus on dynamics and don't mind if the soundstage is not realistic.

I'm with you in that soundstage is important to me, and I've also found that sitting closer can help. Some of the best sound staging I've heard has been from near field listening with big horns - go figure.

 

The single biggest improvement I've had to soundstage has been from using crosstalk cancellation via Bacch4mac which I carried on about here

There are other people who offer slightly different (and cheaper) versions, like Home Audio Fidelity.

I definitely recommend giving either one of those a try if soundstage matters to you 

 

By the way what are your speakers that are 180cm tall?

[Stereophilus]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

I'm interested in this idea. Can you tell me what you mean by "more variability between test subjects" and what is the mechanism by which this leads to false negatives?

Let's take for example a situation where the DBT seeks to establish if there is a difference in treble detail reproduction if a certain cable is changed.  Everything is set up, but they choose a random sample of the population with no pretest assessment of ability to hear.  This poor implementation would lead to a broad variation in reported differences.  You might get around 50% of your subjects reporting no difference due to their lack of ability to hear it.  A 50:50 split in say a sample size of 100 subjects is statistically a null result.  

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 minute ago, Stereophilus said:

Let's take for example a situation where the DBT seeks to establish if there is a difference in treble detail reproduction if a certain cable is changed.  Everything is set up, but they choose a random sample of the population with no pretest assessment of ability to hear.  This poor implementation would lead to a broad variation in reported differences.  You might get around 50% of your subjects reporting no difference due to their lack of ability to hear it.  A 50:50 split in say a sample size of 100 subjects is statistically a null result.  

 

 

Ok I see what you are saying. That makes sense, although it would be interesting to know whether trained listeners/audiophiles are any better than random members of the population (I think there are studies on this but I can't recall what they say).

 

It is interesting though that random members of the population are often cited as evidence of the 'reality' of a change. As in 'my wife called out from the next room and asked me what I'd changed"

 

 

 

[frednork]

5 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

but they are most certainly never "night and day" differences in reality,

Agree night and day is an overstatement. I agree to the extent that the differences may not be apparent to all,  or even many as a percentage of the population.  However there still may be a provable discernable difference with the right amount of effort and "homework". I remember reading a while back that you tried some speaker cables that you previously thought were similar to the ones you normally use but a lot cheaper and when you re-tested them you found that they did not appear to offer the same level of performance you first imagined.  What confidence do you have that others or even yourself in a blinded  situation with little or no practice or input into the test would be able to reliably pick a difference, and further to that what would you need to do give the best possible chance of finding a difference under blinded conditions? Do any of the tests you have seen give a similar level of enhanced opportunity to discern a difference. 

 

 

[Ittaku]

3 minutes ago, frednork said:

 I remember reading a while back that you tried some speaker cables that you previously thought were similar to the ones you normally use but a lot cheaper and when you re-tested them you found that they did not appear to offer the same level of performance you first imagined.  What confidence do you have that others or even yourself in a blinded  situation with little or no practice or input into the test would be able to reliably pick a difference, and further to that what would you need to do give the best possible chance of finding a difference under blinded conditions?

Zero.

[Guest rmpfyf]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by rmpfyf

[frednork]

13 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

It's interesting that different people have different priorities when it comes to their systems. I know some people who focus on dynamics and don't mind if the soundstage is not realistic.

I'm with you in that soundstage is important to me, and I've also found that sitting closer can help. Some of the best sound staging I've heard has been from near field listening with big horns - go figure.

 

The single biggest improvement I've had to soundstage has been from using crosstalk cancellation via Bacch4mac which I carried on about here

There are other people who offer slightly different (and cheaper) versions, like Home Audio Fidelity.

I definitely recommend giving either one of those a try if soundstage matters to you 

 

By the way what are your speakers that are 180cm tall?

Did see the Bacc4mac thing and it is a very interesting system, along with the HFA stuff, wouldnt mind hearing their effects at some point.  There is also Crosstalk cancellation in some Weiss products like  the dsp502. 

 

To put the ethernet cable thing into context, compared to some well applied dsp the effect on soundstage is quite small. However once your speaker room interaction is optimised and that is your baseline then things like ethernet cables and clocks make a small but noticeable improvement. 

 

Perhaps a hierarchy of things to concern oneself with regarding system setup would be useful. In a hierarchy such as this I would put Ethernet cables  pretty low. However that is quite different to saying there is no difference.

[Ittaku]

4 minutes ago, frednork said:

Did see the Bacc4mac thing and it is a very interesting system, along with the HFA stuff, wouldnt mind hearing their effects at some point.  There is also Crosstalk cancellation in some Weiss products like  the dsp502. 

 

To put the ethernet cable thing into context, compared to some well applied dsp the effect on soundstage is quite small. However once your speaker room interaction is optimised and that is your baseline then things like ethernet cables and clocks make a small but noticeable improvement. 

 

Perhaps a hierarchy of things to concern oneself with regarding system setup would be useful. In a hierarchy such as this I would put Ethernet cables  pretty low. However that is quite different to saying there is no difference.

One changes the electrical and acoustic sound waves dramatically and the other has failed to make any demonstrable measurable difference by any metric. We shouldn't really be comparing the two.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Ittaku

[frednork]

Forgot to mention that horns are known for their potentially excellent directivity characteristics which will greatly assist soundstage perception and sitting closer just means less of the room is affecting what you hear so unless you have a larger room its usually a good thing to do. Larger rooms have their own issues.

 

My speakers are Duntech princesses

Edited March 21, 2021 by frednork

[Stereophilus]

20 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

 

Ok I see what you are saying. That makes sense, although it would be interesting to know whether trained listeners/audiophiles are any better than random members of the population (I think there are studies on this but I can't recall what they say).

 

It is interesting though that random members of the population are often cited as evidence of the 'reality' of a change. As in 'my wife called out from the next room and asked me what I'd changed"

Yes, I too have often found that aspect of this hobby unusual... that somehow we need the validation of an untrained person to corroborate what we think we hear.  

 

Maybe it's an attempt at trying a SBT with an easily available subject.  Maybe it's an indirect acknowledgement of our awareness of our own biases.

 

Either way, I don't personally find the statement "my [significant other] heard the difference" all that useful.

 

6 minutes ago, frednork said:

To put the ethernet cable thing into context, compared to some well applied dsp the effect on soundstage is quite small. However once your speaker room interaction is optimised and that is your baseline then things like ethernet cables and clocks make a small but noticeable improvement. 

Although any difference is likely to be system dependent I would think.

[frednork]

5 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

One changes the electrical and acoustic sound waves dramatically and the other has failed to make any demonstrable measurable difference by any metric. We shouldn't really be comparing the two.

Fair enough, but that means you and I will need to put "in my unverified listening tests" in front of every comment we make about how somethings sounds. Even if there is a correlation with some measurement it doesnt mean I have to believe that someone says they can hear it.  

You go first!

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, frednork said:

Fair enough, but that means you and I will need to put "in my unverified listening tests" in front of every comment we make about how somethings sounds. Even if there is a correlation with some measurement it doesnt mean I have to believe that someone says they can hear it.  

You go first!

Sure thing. I stopped verifying everything after I contracted Meniere's disease, so take all my listening comparisons as being purely subjective and potentially invalid.

[Guest Eggcup the Dafter]

40 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

 

@Steffen

 

I've written quite detailed, substantiative posts on what is actually wrong with Achimago's and Amir's various approaches on jitter. The latest ones are in this thread. 

 

If you didn't read them, do so if you're interested. 

 

If you didn't understand them, point out what's interesting and I'll elaborate here I can.

 

But don't come back suggesting all I've done is say they're wrong and it's hard. That's not the case at all.

From what I can see, you've made an assertion re clock jitter, and given us a graph showing, well, something else without joining the dots.

And ypu've criticised Archimago's test because the signal that was unchanged may have had an audible issue - but that in itself appears irrelevant, since none of the changes of cable added or subtracted audibly from that problem.

So let's ignore them and get down to your knowledge. You have implicitly claimed that changing Ethernet cable could actually affect the sound in some circumstance. Would you care to explain how that happens, and what test we can run to demonstrate an actual change in sound, from changing an Ethernet cable? All we have from that side of the argument, everywhere else, is "well I can hear it". I don't want to know why they are wrong, for now anyway. I just want to know why you're right.

 

Edit - on re-reading this, it comes off as a bit rude. I didn't intend it that way. Sorry.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Eggcup the Dafter

[frednork]

5 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

Although any difference is likely to be system dependent I would think.

Absolutely,  with no reservation

 

1 hour ago, Ittaku said:

Sure thing. I stopped verifying everything after I contracted Meniere's disease, so take all my listening comparisons as being purely subjective and potentially invalid.

 

I dont assume anyones listening impressions are any more than that. Figuring out if they are right or not (from a purely subjective  and potentially invalid perspective as well) is the tricky or fun bit depending on your access to similar changes.

[Ittaku]

3 minutes ago, frednork said:

I dont assume anyones listening impressions are any more than that. Figuring out if they are right or not (from a purely subjective  and potentially invalid perspective as well) is the tricky or fun bit depending on your access to similar changes.

Well like I said, I did try to do some blind comparisons and/or ABX testing previously on questionable changes when I did hear a difference to then have to question myself. Now I no longer fret the small stuff and don't even bother with things I instinctively know (caveat whatever you want here) can't affect the sound. 

[frednork]

30 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

Well like I said, I did try to do some blind comparisons and/or ABX testing previously on questionable changes when I did hear a difference to then have to question myself. Now I no longer fret the small stuff and don't even bother with things I instinctively know (caveat whatever you want here) can't affect the sound. 

Fair enough, it is exhausting and time consuming trying every little thing someone says improves things and even more than that things that work/dont work for me do the opposite on someone elses setup as perceived by my same subjective unverified ears.

[Luc]

7 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

Now I no longer fret the small stuff and don't even bother with things I instinctively know (caveat whatever you want here) can't affect the sound. 

345 replies to this thread says that heaps of others do or they're just itching for an argument.

 

Leave now, sign off and come over to the new thread I'm about to start up concerning the practice of leaning back (mainly men) while seated in the sweet spot and putting their arms behind their head.

You've twigged the problem and the argument already haven't you.

Yes! Cupping of the ears  increases your ability to hear the highs and mids and diminishes the blather you get out Subs and the bottom hz range.

No amount of cabling  can account for the dramatic change, ethernet, silver ethernet, unobtainium ethernet, silver encased in copper with wee tiny holes drilled into it to let the silver shine ethernet. None come close to a cupped hand behind the ear(preferably two apparantly)

 

Some GTG's have banned the practice actually, which is a bit harsh I think. A fleshier @djb spotted at a plein air listening session somewhere in Syndal. He's not been back there, banned I think as he heard just how bright the music was at times. He was booted from one at Elwood for the same reason.  He's allowed into @buddyev 's gtg's but only under strict conditions.

 

 

I'll edit a link ,to the new thread shortly.

[Guest rmpfyf]

.

Edited March 23, 2021 by rmpfyf

[Steffen]

2 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

 

It was suggested Amir's video demonstrated that random noise in an audio signal raises the noise floor. I explained - have many times now - that random noise in audio associated with jitter is usually concerned with clock accuracy, it's not constant amplitude and that it cannot solely raise the noise floor in the manner Amir demonstrated - that it effectively instead widens the peak. As I suggested.

 

 

That’s the thing, you don’t explain it, you merely assert it. Am I supposed to just take your opinion as the truth (especially when we’re discussing other opinions to the contrary), or are you going to share how you arrived at your assertion?

 

In a quite rude and condescending way you have been asserting all manner of things in this thread, without backup, sources, anything. You’re basically calling people like Archimago and Amir idiots, and leave it at that.

 

I’m not in the least suggesting that what you’re saying is wrong, just that it contradicts what other people have said. By not explaining, but simply talking louder than everybody (figuratively), you’re not advancing the discussion. I for one would really like to get at the truth, and get a better understanding of the topic.

 

2 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

What comes off as rude are you and a few others making snap judgements of contributions to a thread the likes of 'you haven't proved anything' then hi-fiving each other liking each other's posts as you do.

 

Not high-fiving, usually just agreeing. Or, in my case, glad that I didn’t have to type it up myself.