Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pascal.Pincosy]

I seem to keep missing the fine details of your test, for some reason I can't force myself to pay attention to the details.

<snip>

Using a listening test to find a difference expected to be as small as I expect the mic cables to make in that context reminds me of the fable about the Princess and the pea, that supposedly disturbed her sleep beneath tens of mattresses, but like the princess, who knows you may even get a few princesses out there who report hearing a difference

The thing about audio is that there are lots and lots and lots of peas. Bad sound is often death by a thousand paper cuts. Each little issue is, by itself, difficult or impossible to hear. But compounding many little issues can often make a big difference. Personally I appreciate John Huntington's attempts to find truth. If you don't, then why bother continuing to post in this thread?

[Jay Barracato]

I thought about that, actually, but I felt I'd be opening myself to accusations that the splitter was interfering with the results, which could maybe be plausible given what we know about star quad, and its capacitance issues, etc.

But again, as long as the console, etc etc all stay the same, then the only variable I can think of is the cable.   

John

"Does it sound better" is not result that can be statistically determined. To be meaningful a scientific experiment needs to be set up to give a determinant result that is valid and reliable. Nothing in this "experimental" setup suggests that to me.

I would set up to test a null hypothesis " There is no difference in the signal between the quad cable and standard cable".

I took 30 seconds of my life to check just that yesterday. For a comparison of 25 foot mic cables, there was no difference in the signal passed.

The next step is to vary the external conditions on the cables. I think I will leave that for a middle school science fair project.

[John Roberts {JR}]

The thing about audio is that there are lots and lots and lots of peas. Bad sound is often death by a thousand paper cuts. Each little issue is, by itself, difficult or impossible to hear. But compounding many little issues can often make a big difference. Personally I appreciate John Huntington's attempts to find truth. If you don't, then why bother continuing to post in this thread?

I am sympathetic to debunking hyperbolic marketing claims, as I have been actively doing exactly that for longer than some reading this thread have been out of diapers.

I am critical of the design of his test to isolate the "pea" beneath the "mattresses" of other parts of that particular audio chain. The technical merit, pros and cons of star-quad were well vetted by several here, when that (somewhat embarrassing) article was first published on the forum. We had already dissed it and stuck a fork in it before his personal personal exchanges with the author.   

The title of his thread says "help me find out", and several have tried. It appears there is an agenda, to myth bust that article which has already been busted (IMO).

If he really wants to "find out" (or convince), a simple null subtraction of the two digital sound files will reveal any differences, probably useful for him to know in any case to help interpret the listener results should any not come back, "no difference". I suspect the differences found, will not be cable related, thus putting the test resolution floor in question. Hopefully the test resolution floor will be low enough to deliver the desired, no difference result.

In my judgement there will be a difference between those two mic cables, but too small to be measured in that test, and surely too small to be heard in that test.

JR

PS: Nobody objects to searching for truth, but a lot of truth is already already out there. There is even nothing wrong with using sophistry to lead the unwashed to a forgone conclusion, just not on the CLASSIC LAB (and be sure to do that well). 

[James Feenstra]

For this experiment to be reasonably valid, there needs to be only one mic, hard mounted so you don't move it, as you change the mic cable, between takes, and you surely don't need human variability in the performance so use a player piano,,,   but even then the expected difference caused by mic cables in that experimental setup will be nil so why bother?

could eliminate all those elements simply by taking the output of a recorded media player directly into the USB pre

Then the only thing that changes is the cable itself. Provided both cables are the same length it'd be a decent (yet still relatively pointless) test

[Pascal.Pincosy]

I am sympathetic to debunking hyperbolic marketing claims, as I have been actively doing exactly that for longer than some reading this thread have been out of diapers.

I am critical of the design of his test to isolate the "pea" beneath the "mattresses" of other parts of that particular audio chain. The technical merit, pros and cons of star-quad were well vetted by several here, when that (somewhat embarrassing) article was first published on the forum. We had already dissed it and stuck a fork in it before his personal personal exchanges with the author.   

The title of his thread says "help me find out", and several have tried. It appears there is an agenda, to myth bust that article which has already been busted (IMO).

If he really wants to "find out" (or convince), a simple null subtraction of the two digital sound files will reveal any differences, probably useful for him to know in any case to help interpret the listener results should any not come back, "no difference". I suspect the differences found, will not be cable related, thus putting the test resolution floor in question. Hopefully the test resolution floor will be low enough to deliver the desired, no difference result.

In my judgement there will be a difference between those two mic cables, but too small to be measured in that test, and surely too small to be heard in that test.

JR

PS: Nobody objects to searching for truth, but a lot of truth is already already out there. There is even nothing wrong with using sophistry to lead the unwashed to a forgone conclusion, just not on the CLASSIC LAB (and be sure to do that well).

Huh.

Having read this thread over and over, it appears to me that you are arguing a point simply for the sake of keeping yourself busy and making others look bad. The OP posted a somewhat interesting thread looking for some peer review, and you proceeded to make a bunch of assumptions about his methods and dumped all over him without even bothering to read the whole thing. Every post you made was rude. Perhaps his methods are faulty. Perhaps his whole point is worthless. But the amount of bile you poured into this thread is unnecessary, thoughtless, and inconsiderate.

No wonder so many people don't want to post on this forum, fearing the "old boys" network...

[John Roberts {JR}]

Huh.

Having read this thread over and over, it appears to me that you are arguing a point simply for the sake of keeping yourself busy and making others look bad. The OP posted a somewhat interesting thread looking for some peer review, and you proceeded to make a bunch of assumptions about his methods and dumped all over him without even bothering to read the whole thing. Every post you made was rude. Perhaps his methods are faulty. Perhaps his whole point is worthless. But the amount of bile you poured into this thread is unnecessary, thoughtless, and inconsiderate.

No wonder so many people don't want to post on this forum, fearing the "old boys" network...

You criticism is noted, you will understand if I don't completely agree.

While I question the veracity of the poster's "Help me find out" request,  my primary objection is to the design of the the experiment, and purpose.

I guess i am still posting here too much..

JR "old boy"

[Tim McCulloch]

Huh.

Having read this thread over and over, it appears to me that you are arguing a point simply for the sake of keeping yourself busy and making others look bad. The OP posted a somewhat interesting thread looking for some peer review, and you proceeded to make a bunch of assumptions about his methods and dumped all over him without even bothering to read the whole thing. Every post you made was rude. Perhaps his methods are faulty. Perhaps his whole point is worthless. But the amount of bile you poured into this thread is unnecessary, thoughtless, and inconsiderate.

No wonder so many people don't want to post on this forum, fearing the "old boys" network...

I, too, have problems with Professor Huntington's methodology but I think the final peer review he gets upon posting or publication will suffice as a correction.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

ps.  Anyone in theatre or music touring would do well to own a copy of "Control Systems for Live Entertainment" by John Huntington, Focal Press.

[Brad Weber]

A little late to the party, but I have to say that Chuck Clark's post in this thread seems rather ironic since his comments address almost exactly what John was responding to, an article in a pro audio publication where someone seemd to credit any peceived improvement resulting from replacing some problematic old cables with new cables for a couple of gigs solely to the star quad construction of the new cables.

Reading through the posts in this discussion I get the sense of the very issue I think John was trying to address.  You can set up a very scientific and objective test but you will still have those that claim to hear a difference regardless of the results.  Or you can conduct a very subjective comparison and have people object to the technical inadequacies of the method.  I think John was trying to develop a process that while perhaps not perfect, tried to address both sides.

[John Livings]

Hi Tim, Thanks For the recommendation and John H. for writing it.  (Just received book today


"p.s..  Anyone in theatre or music touring would do well to own a copy of "Control Systems for Live Entertainment" by John Huntington, Focal Press."

Regards,  John

[ProSoundWeb Community]