Help with my University Research Project

PLease read all this post carefully. It is a little long but I hope it clarifies some things and brings people up to speed with our currrent state.

I had thought this thread was dead... until I can complete my initial research and can post the results. But recently I have recieved a few emails (one about a month ago and another yesterday) and have noticed a few new posts as well. I think that I should restate a few things. Not because I wish to argue any points, the recent posts and emails are completely correct, but because I would like to clarify some things that we hope to accomplish.

I will not be using any sort of "human compass" test measurements initially. First I would like to establish a reference recording. Then I will play this recording from source (computer) through the cables in question and then into the measurement computer. If there is a difference then it will show up. I might not be able to say what that will correspond to if it were played through a "perfect amp" and "perfect speaker" and in a "perfect room", but I will be able to say that there is a difference.

Of course all of that is an oversimplification. However we believe that any time problems, or any frequency or harmonic anomolies will be detected. Again, what this translates into or how to really quantify the anomolies is not our initial goal. If it turns out that we can assign a set of characteristic anomolies to a certain cable (and our preliminary stuff says YES) then we will begin to set up a very controlled environment in which to go deeper. Of course there is always the possibility that a cable only acts the way it does when connected to Levinson or Rotel stuff and not with VTL or Spectral. If that is the reality of the situation... and we suspect it is, then this research will not validate it. What it will do is prove that cables can impart changes.

Our project is shaping into this:

We will use all Mark Levinson gear (No.39 CD, No 380 Pre, and a 336 Amp) going to Thiel speakers in a rectangular room. We will then use some friends as subjects. Again it is not our goal identify what cable produces the widest or most accurate soundstage but only that it does indeed change it. I think that anyone shoud be able to tell, on well recorded music, if there is big enough change.

Of course none of this will help anyone on this board when deciding on cable purchases. What we hope it will do is prove that it can be done. What we think needs to happen (and what we know never will) is that there needs to be some sort of standard test for all cables. Maybe this won't be "hey this cable gives a 2.3 whosawhatchit soundstage". But it might be something like this. "hey this gives a 2.3 whosawatchit which means it might cause timing or harmonic anomolies with equipment in this blah blah blah arbitrary catagory"

We also should mention that we in now way believe that we are doing research that has not been done before. What we do believe is that it has not been published. It is probably done once a day for the last 10 years in research labs at Madrigal or Spectral or TagMcLaren etc. etc.

So in summation, we will first look at a few cables to determine their reaction with a reference system. We will then try and document any measurable changes the cables impart on the system. The last stage will be to try and describe (in very, very basic audiophile terms) what those changes might be. If this can be done then we will have answered a question that many industry engineers already know. Will this mean that Joe Bloe with his $10,000 cables really does hear a better soundstage than Joe Schmoe does with his RatShack stuff... NO. But it will give some validity to these types of claims "I noticed a difference between cable A and Cable B"

Trthomp,

I will continue to follow this thread with great interest. I look forward to your results no matter the outcome. I don't know if you plan on noting differences in cables depending on their use of materials or design, but no matter your findings will be interesting.

Keep up the good work!

Trthomp, there is certainly no lack of interest in your project! Thank you for sharing your findings with us as you go along (your time permitting).
Cheers!

I reread carefully your last post as well as the original. I am not a physicist or an engineer, but what I gleaned from your more recent post is that you will attempt to show objectively that there are differences in cables along the lines of whatever you intend to measure or observe with your computer methodology. Then you intend to observe and compile the statements of a panel of listeners regarding what the cables under test "sound" like. I am sure your listening panel will say that the cables sound different and you seem fairly sure that you will be able to show that the cables impart some changes in spectral balance or timing or harmonics which can be measured using your computers. In your original post you say:

We are postulating that the distortion, with certain component/cable combinations, results in the,(excuse this word), recovery of lost waves. This does not mean that the resulting signal is exactly the same, or that there is not some unwanted stuff in there. We merely suggest that it is the missing waves(distortion) that give music its "real" quality.

Let me assume that your computer analysis, if it demonstrates a difference between the two signals (prior to the cable and after the cable), can attribute this difference to "lost waves".

If the listeners identify any differences in cables, as I think they will since I hear them, I don't think there is anything in the way this experiment is designed that will allow you to attribute the differences which the listeners describe to the "lost waves".

My last statement, I think, is the point of your last post. But it seems to me that all scientific experimentation starts with a hypothesis or, as you described it in the paragraph which I excerpted from you, a postulation. Yours is contained in the last sentence of that which I excerpted. Hopefully you will get there, perhaps with follow-on experiments, but what we really need in audio is not simply more standardized testing as you state in your last post, but more proof that the characteristics being measured, varied or "improved" do contribute significantly to our perception of the quality of the sound. If you can demonstrate that, your contribution to audio will be quite significant and the industry will likely adopt your standards for measuring cables as well as other audio equipment.

I do wish you luck, not because I am tired of listening to cables in order to determine which I think is best. That is, after all, my hobby. I am tired however, of the pseudoscience and advertising "rhetoric" which exists in the audio industry and anyone who is seeking to establish any objective measure of what we agree sounds correct, no matter how difficult this is to accomplish, has my support.

Rayhall -

When I made the statement regarding lost waves I did not mean that literally. That was extremely simplified and ultimately a bad phrase. I wish I had a picture of what our software looks like graphically...

Try to imagine the (x) axis being the frequency band from 0 to 20,000 and the (y) axis being the amplitude. If I were to record myself saying the phrase "social science is an oxymoron" it would register my voice throughout the spectrum. The average of say the first syllable "so" would be the tone of my voice which a guitar tuner might register as "C#". However the reality of that syllable is the vibration of the air at many different frequencies. Different cables, because they have different physical properties can alter some of those frequencies. The audible result might not be a change of my voice from (C#) to (D) but it will change something.

The physics behind what makes a person perceive a "soundstage" as being wide or deep as opposed to shallow are actually known. It is a kind of mathematical physics that is best done on computers. As you probably know reverberation and or perceived reverberation is a major factor. When a signal gets altered one of things that can be lost is that sense of space or perhaps the exact placement of instruments. It is this kind of stuff that all those cheap DSP programs on A/V Receivers try to accomplish (the addition of space). The only good implementation of this technology that I have EVER heard is the LOGIC 7 stuff in Lexicon gear. In a way this is what a lot of people seek from upsampling technology. Some components do this very poorly (they add a sense of space but they alter the signal too much, obscuring other things). The really good components manage to add a sense of space without making a detrimental impact on the original signal. Of course this is ultimately a matter of taste but I think there is a general consensus that some components do accomplish it better than others.

All those references to "lifting a veil" are actually great analogies IMHO. Our goal is to find out what that veil looks like, does it have characteristic look (mathematically)? Is it merely a decrease in certain frequencies whose effects could be countered by a cable that amplifies those frequencies?

Again, all of this is really speculation since we do not have nearly enough data to say statistically whether or not our model is valid. Not to mention the fact that we have not done any listening evaluations.

I hope this was helpful and/or that I explained my project in more detail