I specifically mentioned 22 KHz at 8 ohms in my previous post. Is that specific enough for you? If it isn't, please refer to the article that you based your entire argument on. Other than that, anyone that can do the math should have been able to extrapolate the center frequency at 8 ohms based on the divisible factor of .5 as impedance is halved. Sorry if this is too complex for you. Sean > |
Why not conduct some simple "non blind folded" listening tests and see what you find? I'll send you some inexpensive Nordost cabling and you can listen to it in comparison to both zip cord and to your Canare's. Given that the zip cord and Nordost are both quite high in nominal impedance, this should be a relatively "apples to apples" comparison in your eyes. I would be willing to accept your findings, regardless of the outcome. This will either confirm the ideas that you've been promoting on-line or open up your eyes, ears and thought process to a whole different world. Sean > |
Dude -- try to stay focused. There's no need for me to repeat the work done in the study I referenced. What, do you think I am going to listen to a few cables and say, "by god, .1dB down at 20Khz *IS* audible. Sean is right to give out incomplete information and half-truths!" That's the issue here. It ain't gonna happen. Your insistence on "sighted" cable tests tells me everything I need to know regarding your methodology. If I were to go around telling people I know I can hear .1dB down at 20Khz because I passed a sighted cable test, I would expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to laugh me out of the room. Here's a better test. We get ABX equipment. We arrange four test tones. One flat and one .1 db down at 20Khz, one flat and .25 db down at 22 Khz. You show that you can reliably tell them apart. We're talking pure test tones, which should make it easier than listening to music over the entire spectrum. Masking from other tones is completely removed. If you pass, then we book you on a tour of County Faires this summer where you demonstrate your ability. |
"Dude", your inability to trust your own senses is what scares me. If there is the obvious difference in sonics that i'm telling you there is between zip cord and Nordost, you won't need blinders or a switch box to tell what's what. Like i said, i have enough faith in your listening skills and integrity to honestly report the results of your own "sighted but flawed" listening tests. Using these two cables within the confines of your own system, which you should be very familiar with, should resolve the situation once and for all. That is, if your system is as neutral as you think it is. The testing that i've conducted here has given me enough faith to make this offer to you and be quite positive in the outcome. Sean > PS... This is a legit offer, not part of a sideshow at the local amusement park. If the differences are as small as you say, you can blame the LACK of audible differences on the fact that the cables measured the same, not on the poorer quality of your components or your lack of listening skills. I've performed the same tests here and others passed with flying colours. |
There is an implicit inference involved when one tests using pure sine waves, and then *infers* the results about audiophilic listening. It is probably best to remove this inference step, and--if one wants to make conclusions about what we perceive when we listen to music--then we should test these perceptions *with music.* The point is not simply academic: as reported in the Journal of Neurophysiology (http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548) and cited in lay context here http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm, measurable brain physiological response can be measured in individuals when exposed to music with a high pass filter of 22kHz. It is an impressive study, using special recording equipment, speakers with a flat response to 100kHz, baseline measurements for controls, electroencephalograms (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET), and measurements of cerebral blood flow to detect brain response. The PDF is available: well worth reading. There is no explicit support for or against differences of 0.1dB or 0.25dB at 22kHz being discernable--I'll leave it to the reader to make his/her own inferences from what is explicitly tested. Besides the importance of musical context, the study also found that short 15-20 second clips were not enough. Subjects listened for 200 seconds in much of the testing, and these longer listening sessions were required for a response to be noted. This does lend some support to the old audiophile adage that you really have to sit and listen *for a while,* and then--you can't quite explain it--but there really may be a reason why you prefer A over B. |
